PITT -v- BAXTER [2007] WASCA 104

Reported Decision:	(2007) 34 WAR 102
Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASCA 104
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACR:10/2006	Heard:	14 FEBRUARY 2007
Coram:	WHEELER JA BUSS JA MILLER AJA	Delivered:	18/05/07
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted Appeal dismissed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	CHRISTOPHER JAMES GEOFFREY PITT TIMOTHY BAXTER
Catchwords:	Criminal law Resisting arrest and hindering police Implied licence for police to enter common property Tenant in common unilaterally purporting to revoke implied licence granted by all tenants in common
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Chin Lan Hong v Cheung Poh Choo [2005] 3 HKLRD 811 Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427 Halliday v Nevill (1984) 155 CLR 1 Pitt v Baxter [2006] WASC 4 State of New South Wales v Koumdjiev (2005) 63 NSWLR 353

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : PITT -v- BAXTER [2007] WASCA 104 CORAM : WHEELER JA

BUSS JA

MILLER AJA

HEARD : 14 FEBRUARY 2007 DELIVERED : 18 MAY 2007 FILE NO/S : CACR 10 of 2006 BETWEEN : CHRISTOPHER JAMES GEOFFREY PITT

Appellant

AND

TIMOTHY BAXTER

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : HASLUCK J

Citation : PITT -v- BAXTER [2006] WASC 4

File No : SJA 1104 of 2005

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Resisting arrest and hindering police - Implied licence for police to enter common property - Tenant in common unilaterally purporting to revoke implied licence granted by all tenants in common

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr C L J Miocevich

Respondent : Mr A J Sefton

Solicitors:

Appellant : Aboriginal Legal Service

Respondent : State Solicitor's Office

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

Chin Lan Hong v Cheung Poh Choo [2005] 3 HKLRD 811
Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427
Halliday v Nevill (1984) 155 CLR 1
Pitt v Baxter [2006] WASC 4
State of New South Wales v Koumdjiev (2005) 63 NSWLR 353

(Page 3)

WHEELER JA

The facts

1 The appellant was convicted on 16 September 2005 in the Magistrates Court of hindering police and resisting arrest, contrary to s 20 of the Police Act 1892 (WA). He was fined $300 and $200 respectively in relation to the offences.

2 The appellant's appeal against those convictions was heard by Hasluck J, who dismissed the appeal on 11 January 2006. The appellant seeks to appeal the decision of Hasluck J, and on 28 June 2006 Roberts-Smith JA ordered that the application for leave be heard together with the appeal.

3 The relevant circumstances are set out by Hasluck J in his reasons (Pitt v Baxter [2006] WASC 4):

"8 It seems that on 2 January 2005 Constables Baxter and Brown were patrolling the Cannington area when their attention was drawn…

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 Pitt v Baxter

Details

AGLC: Pitt v Baxter [2007] WASCA 104
Case: [2007] WASCA 104
Decision Date: 18 MAY 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pitt v Baxter involved the respondents, who were tenants in common of a property, and the appellant, who was the police officer involved in an incident at that property. The dispute arose from the appellant's actions during the execution of a search warrant, which led to the respondents being charged with resisting arrest and hindering police. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the police had an implied licence to enter the common property, and if so, whether this licence could be unilaterally revoked by one tenant in common. The respondents argued that they had the right to prevent the police from entering the property, while the appellant contended that the police's entry was lawful based on the implied licence granted by all tenants in common.

The court found that the police did have an implied licence to enter the common property, granted by all tenants in common. However, the court also held that this licence could be revoked by all tenants in common, not just one. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the balance between the rights of individuals and the need for law enforcement to carry out their duties. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted to the respondents.

The final orders of the court were to grant leave to appeal and dismiss the appeal. This decision highlights the need for tenants in common to work together when it comes to granting or revoking implied licences for law enforcement to enter common property.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.