Maybury v Plowman

The case of *Maybury v Plowman* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from an action for assault and false imprisonment brought by the respondent, Plowman, against the appellants, Maybury (the Sheriff) and King (his bailiff). Plowman alleged he was unlawfully arrested and detained after re-entering land from which he had previously been removed under a writ of possession. The appellants sought to justify the arrest and detention by asserting that Plowman had committed an offence under the *Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901* (NSW) by trespassing on inclosed lands after being removed, and that the arrest was lawful under section 352(1)(a) of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW).

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether section 352(1)(a) of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW), which provides a general power for a constable or other person to apprehend without warrant any person found committing an offence punishable under any Act, applied to offences created by the *Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901* (NSW). Specifically, the court had to determine if this general power of arrest was overridden by the more specific provisions for apprehension contained in section 6 of the *Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901*, which permits the owner, occupier, or person in charge of the land to apprehend an offender.

The High Court held that section 352(1)(a) of the *Crimes Act 1900* was applicable to offences created by the *Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901*. The Court reasoned that the language of section 352(1)(a) was broad enough to encompass offences under any Act, and that there was no inherent inconsistency or repugnancy between the general power of arrest in the *Crimes Act* and the specific power of arrest in the *Inclosed Lands Protection Act*. Instead, the Court found that the two provisions were consistent and mutually assisting, with the general power in the *Crimes Act* providing an additional means of apprehending offenders under the *Inclosed Lands Protection Act*. The Court also noted that the construction of a consolidating statute depends on its language as applied to the subject matter at the date of its enactment, and that the inversion of the order of statutes due to consolidation did not alter the legal effect of their provisions in this instance.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, discharged the order of the Supreme Court, and overruled the demurrer. The Court found that the second plea, which sought to justify the arrest under section 352(1)(a) of the *Crimes Act 1900*, disclosed a valid defence. The parties were to bear their own costs of the appeal and the demurrer.