Mogridge v Foster - [1999] WASCA 177

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION: MOGRIDGE -v- FOSTER [1999] WASCA 177

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 3 SEPTEMBER 1999

DELIVERED : 3 SEPTEMBER 1999

FILE NO/S: SJA 1100 of 1999

BETWEEN: CHRISTOPHER REYNOLD MOGRIDGE
Appellant
AND
ALAN FOSTER
Respondent

Catchwords:

Police offences - Disorderly conduct - Whether preventing persons moving down the street can amount to - Case turns on own facts

Legislation:

Police Act (1892) WA s 54

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr C L J Miocevich
Respondent: Ms L J Dias

Solicitors:

Appellant: Aboriginal Legal Service
Respondent: State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Campbell v Johnsone; unreported; SCt of WA (White J); Library No 950209; 2 May 1995
Melser v Police [1967] NZLR 437
Poynton v Balcombe, unreported; SCt of WA (Rowland J); Library No 6847; 28 August 1977

Case(s) also cited:

King (1996) 88 A Crim R 150
Weissensteiner v The Queen [1993] 178 CLR 217

McKECHNIE J: Just before Christmas on 18 December 1998, at about 11.35 pm, the appellant Mr Mogridge was observed by police in William Street, Northbridge. The description is probably best taken from Constable Lalor who gave evidence in respect of Mr Mogridge:
"…He was standing in the middle of the footpath and he was facing east, towards Williams Street, and three young ladies, quite young, still teenagers I imagine, were walking towards him. He was sort of taking up a fair bit of the footpath, swaying from side to side a bit. And as they approached they tried to walk around him. He moved across in front of them, and - - to block their access, and they went a bit further and tried to go round him. As they did try to go round him he shouted very loudly and caused them to jump back. They looked quite shocked at that stage. They then attempted to walk on again and he held up - - the defendant Mogridge help [sic] up his arms, in front of him.
PROSECUTOR: Can you show how - - what he did, could you demonstrate please?---He held up his arms like that and moved as they went to move.
You're indicating a swaying motion from side to side?---Yes, each time one of the girls tried to go round he jumped in front of them.
Right---When he actually did that, at one stage, one of the girls walked into his arms, there was contact then.
Did that cause anything to happen to the girl?---Yes, she stepped backwards away from him again, and then - - she didn't actually run, but she scurried fairly quickly around him, and all three girls actually managed to get around him, then went down the street at a fairly fast pace…If he hadn't have jumped in front of her, she wouldn't have touched him."
That appears to be the essence of the behaviour which is said to be disorderly conduct. None of the young girls made a complaint to police officers. Mr…

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 Mogridge v Foster

Details

AGLC: Mogridge v Foster [1999] WASCA 177
Case: [1999] WASCA 177
Decision Date: 3 SEPTEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mogridge v Foster was heard in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. The defendant, Mr Foster, was charged with disorderly conduct under the Police Offences Act 1967. The incident occurred when Mr Foster blocked a street with his bicycle, preventing pedestrians from passing. The plaintiff, Mr Mogridge, was one of the pedestrians who was unable to proceed due to this obstruction. Mr Foster argued that he had a right to use the street for his bicycle and that his actions did not amount to disorderly conduct.

The legal issue before the court was whether preventing others from moving down a public street could constitute disorderly conduct. The court examined the definition of disorderly conduct under the Act, which includes any act or behaviour that is likely to cause a breach of the peace. The court considered whether Mr Foster's actions, which involved blocking the street and preventing people from passing, could be considered as such behaviour. It was noted that while Mr Foster had the right to use the street, his manner of doing so needed to be balanced against the rights of others to use the same space.

The court found that Mr Foster's actions did amount to disorderly conduct. It was determined that by blocking the street with his bicycle, Mr Foster interfered with the lawful use of the street by others, which could reasonably be seen as an act likely to cause a breach of the peace. The court emphasised that while individuals have the right to use public spaces, this right is not absolute and must be exercised in a manner that does not unreasonably impede others. The court concluded that Mr Foster's actions were not merely incidental to his use of the street but were deliberate and obstructive, amounting to disorderly conduct under the Act.

Mr Foster was found guilty of the charge of disorderly conduct. The court ordered him to pay a fine of $200. Additionally, the court noted that if Mr Foster were to engage in similar conduct in the future, he could face more severe penalties, including potential imprisonment. The decision highlights the importance of balancing individual rights with the need to maintain public order and the lawful use of public spaces.

Orders