O'Sullivan v Reedy

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia regarding the interpretation of section 93(1) of the Police Act 1936-1951 (S.A.). The appellant, Inspector O'Sullivan, sought special leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, which had overturned a decision of a single judge and restored an order of dismissal made by a special magistrate. The original complaint charged the respondent, Wilfred Charles Reedy, with having possession of property which "might have been reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained," contrary to section 93(1) of the Act.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the correct interpretation of section 93(1) of the Police Act, specifically whether the offence required proof of an actual, concrete suspicion entertained by a particular person on reasonable grounds prior to the charge being laid, or if it was sufficient to show that the property was of a nature that *could* have reasonably aroused suspicion. This question arose because the complaint alleged the property "might have been reasonably suspected," rather than that it "was reasonably suspected."

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia had held that the offence required proof of an actual, concrete suspicion. They reasoned that the language of the Act, while using the subjunctive mood ("may have been") to describe the condition for the section's operation, necessitated an allegation in the complaint that this condition had been fulfilled, meaning a suspicion had actually been entertained. This interpretation aligned with established South Australian precedent, particularly *Moore v. Allchurch*. The High Court, in considering the application for special leave to appeal, affirmed this interpretation. The Court found that the wording of the complaint, alleging only that the property "might have been reasonably suspected," did not allege the essential ingredient of an actual suspicion, and therefore did not disclose an offence under section 93(1). The Court also distinguished the present case from *Willis v. Burnes*, noting that the specific issue of whether an actual suspicion needed to be proven was not decided in that earlier High Court case.

Consequently, the High Court refused special leave to appeal. This meant the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was upheld, and the order of dismissal of the complaint by the special magistrate was restored.