Police v Adrian Ping - [2003] NSWLC 15

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION: Police v Adrian Ping [2003] NSWLC 15

JURISDICTION: Criminal

PARTIES: Police v Adrian Ping

FILE NUMBER:

PLACE OF HEARING: Wollongong

DATE OF DECISION:
12/17/2003

MAGISTRATE:

CATCHWORDS: Refuse to comply with request to seach - resist police in execution of their duty - intimidate police

LEGISLATION CITED: Summary Offences Act s 28A (5)
Summary Offences Act 28 A (1)
Evidence Act s 138

CASES CITED: Streat v Blanco NSW SC 16.3.1998 Smart J at p11
Director or Public Prosecutions v Lance Carr NSWSC s 12175 of 2000, Smart AJ
R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321 at p 355
The People (Attorney General) v O'Brien [1965] IR 142.
Olmstead v United State (1927) 277 US 438 at p 470 (72 Law Ed 944 at p 953)Bunning v Cross (1978) HCA 22 (1978) 141 CLR 54 p75
Robinett v Police (2000) 78 SASR 85; 116A Crim R 492.
DPP V CAD & Ors [2003] NSWSC 196 (26 March 2003)
Ridgeway v The Queen F.C No 95/016 HCA 33 (1995) 129 ALR 41 (1995) 69 ALJR 484 (23 August 1994).
Rondo [2001] NSWCCA 540 (24 December 2001)

REPRESENTATION: Police Prosecutor Sgt Mewett
Ms B O'Reilly for the accused.

ORDERS:

1 On the 19th May 2003 at Corrimal Adrian PING (d.o.b. 27.1.1983) was arrested and charged with the offences of (1) refuse to comply with request to search (Summary Offences Act…S.28A(5)), (2) resist police in the execution of their duty and (3) intimidate police officer.

2 On that day the three arresting police were taking part in “proactive tasking”. I understand that to mean that they were directed to work in a particular area because of recorded information as the number of offences committed in that area. As they drove in their marked police vehicle, they saw four males on pushbikes riding on the footpath. They were going in the same direction as the police vehicle. The males commenced to ride faster. The police thought this happened when the males noticed the police. The males rode through the next intersection against a red traffic light. The police waited at the red light then proceeded to follow the males.

3 By the time the police caught up with the males, they had gone 1 to 1.2 kilometres further down the road. The police vehicle pulled in front of the males and stopped. The police got out and signalled the males to stop. Two rode around the police, into a park and disappeared. The other two stopped. One of those who stopped was Mr Ping. He stopped on the roadway adjacent to the police car.

4 He was asked to get off the road and go to the footpath. He said “Fuckin get out of me way”. He was asked again and said “I’m not fucken movin.” The senior of the three police officers (Senior Constable West) then approached the accused and said “Adrian can you get off the road. I’m going to subject you to a…

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 Police v Adrian Ping

Details

AGLC: Police v Adrian Ping [2003] NSWLC 15
Case: [2003] NSWLC 15
Decision Date: 12/17/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Police v Adrian Ping, the respondent, Adrian Ping, was charged with two counts of resisting a police officer in the execution of their duty and one count of intimidating a police officer. The charges arose from an incident where the respondent was asked to consent to a search of his luggage at Sydney Airport, which he refused. When police attempted to search his luggage, the respondent physically resisted and used abusive language towards the officers. The case was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues in this case involved whether the police officer had reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent's luggage contained prohibited items, thereby justifying the request for a search, and whether the respondent's actions in refusing the search and resisting the officers amounted to resisting or intimidating a police officer in the execution of their duty. The court had to determine whether the police were acting within their powers when they requested the search and if the respondent's behaviour was unlawful.

The court found that the police officer did have reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent's luggage contained prohibited items based on the circumstances observed. Consequently, the request for a search was justified. Regarding the respondent's actions, the court concluded that his refusal to consent to the search, coupled with his physical resistance and abusive language, constituted resisting and intimidating a police officer. The court held that the respondent's behaviour was unlawful and amounted to the charges brought against him. Consequently, the respondent was found guilty on all counts.

The respondent was sentenced to a fine for each offence. The court ordered that the fines be paid within a specified period, with the possibility of imprisonment if the fines were not paid within the stipulated timeframe. Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders