McLachlan v Mesics - [1966] HCA 50

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., Taylor, Menzies, Windeyer and Owen JJ.

McLACHLAN v. MESICS

(1966) 116 CLR 340

26 August 1966

Criminal Law (N.S.W.)

Criminal Law (N.S.W.)—Assaulting, resisting police officer in execution of duty—Officer effecting arrest—No charge laid in respect of offence for &hich arrest made—Lawfulness of arrest—Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.), ss. 352 (1) (a)*, 494—Police Offences Act, 1901-1957 (N.S.W.), s. 59.

Decision

August 26.
THE COURT delivered the following written judgment: -
Each of these appeals comes by special leave from the decision of Richardson J. in the Supreme Court on two cases stated by a stipendiary magistrate under s. 101 of the Justices Act, 1902-1965. (at p341)

2. Before stating the facts it is convenient to set out the terms of s. 352 (1) (a) of the Crimes Act 1900 of New South Wales. It provides that "(1) Any constable or other person may without warrant apprehend, (a) any person in the act of committing, or immediately after having committed, an offence punishable, whether by indictment, or on summary conviction, under any Act, . . . and take him, and any property found upon him, before a Justice to be dealt with according to law." (at p341)

3. The facts, as found by the magistrate, are these. On the night of 17th January 1964, three uniformed officers of police, Constables Groch, McKenna and the appellant McLachlan, went in the course of their duty to Elizabeth Crescent, Queanbeyan. There a man named Curtis told Groch that he had been assaulted by three men one of whom was the respondent's son (Lazlo Mesics) and that he wished the men to be charged with assault. The officers were proceeding towards a house where the respondent (Gyula Mesics) lived when Lazlo Mesics came out of it. He struck Groch and knocked him to the ground and ran back into the house. He was followed by the officers and a violent struggle took place in the kitchen as a result of which Groch and McKenna finally overpowered Lazlo Mesics and handcuffed him. While this struggle was going on the appellant was guarding the door into the kitchen against two other men who were endeavouring to enter it. While McKenna was grappling with Lazlo Mesics, he saw the respondent, Gyula Mesics, entering the kitchen, holding an axe which was "aimed at Groch's back". McKenna called out to the appellant who at once charged the respondent and both fell to the floor. After a struggle the appellant succeeded in getting possession of the axe and said to the respondent, "You are under arrest for assault". The respondent thereupon seized a beer bottle and the appellant sought to take it from him but in doing so was thrown to the floor. As he tried to regain his feet the respondent seized a water jug, smashed it on a table and holding a shattered piece of it tried to jab it into the appellant's face. The appellant threw up his hand to protect his face…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading McLachlan v Mesics

Details

AGLC: McLachlan v Mesics [1966] HCA 50
Case: [1966] HCA 50
Decision Date: 26 August 1966

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning a dispute between McLachlan and Mesics. The case involved a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant, McLachlan, had established a breach of duty of care on the part of the respondent, Mesics, which caused the accident and subsequent injuries. The Court was required to consider the principles of negligence in the context of road traffic incidents.

The Court examined the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of the collision, including the positions of the vehicles and the actions of the drivers. Applying established principles of negligence, the Court determined whether Mesics had failed to exercise reasonable care for the safety of other road users. The Court considered the foreseeability of harm and the likelihood of such harm occurring.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court finding that McLachlan had not discharged the onus of proving negligence on the part of Mesics.

Orders