Mole v Prior

The appellant, Mole, appealed against the decision of an intermediate court which had overturned his conviction for assault. The respondent, Prior, had spat on a police officer and was taken into “protective custody” under section 128 of the Police Administration Act 1979 (NT). Mole was subsequently convicted of assault but the intermediate court found that the apprehension was lawful but unnecessary and that the evidence of the assault was obtained in consequence of an impropriety. The court held that the evidence should have been excluded under section 138 of the Uniform Evidence Act 1995 (NT).

The legal issue before the court was whether the evidence was obtained as a result of an impropriety. The court considered the purpose of apprehension under section 128 of the PAA and whether the principles which apply to criminal arrest also apply. The court noted that the police conduct was not clearly inconsistent with the minimum standards expected of law enforcement officers and that the evidence was not obtained as a result of an impropriety. The appeal was allowed.

The court found that the apprehension under section 128 of the PAA was different from criminal arrest and that different principles apply. The court held that the police conduct was not clearly inconsistent with the minimum standards expected of law enforcement officers and that the evidence was not obtained as a result of an impropriety. The court further found that the intermediate court had erred in its analysis of the evidence obtained in consequence of an impropriety. The court held that the evidence should not have been excluded and that the conviction of Mole should be reinstated.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, the decision of the intermediate court was set aside, and the conviction of Mole was reinstated. The court further directed that Mole be released on bail pending the determination of any further appeal.