Police v Hunt - [2013] SASC 178

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
POLICE v HUNT
[2013] SASC 178
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Kelly
15 November 2013
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST PEACE AND PUBLIC ORDER - ASSAULTING, RESISTING, HINDERING, OR OBSTRUCTING POLICE OFFICER - GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST PEACE AND PUBLIC ORDER - MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES AND OTHER MATTERS
Appeal against dismissal of count two, the complaint that the respondent without reasonable cause refused to provide his personal details to a police officer. The respondent, who was on foot with two others in the early hours of the morning on 18 November 2012 was approached by a solo police officer on the basis of his suspicion that the respondent had committed the offence of using offensive language. The respondent was subsequently charged with using offensive language, refusing to provide his personal details to a police officer and resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty. The Magistrate found that each offence had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the complaint.
Whether the Magistrate erred in concluding that because he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent used offensive language or resisted police, he could therefore not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of matters needed to convict on the second count of failing to provide personal details.
Held: Allowing the appeal.
(1) The Magistrate erred in his approach to the assessment of whether the police officer had reasonable cause to suspect the respondent had committed an offence.
(2) It was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the facts on which the police officer based his suspicion were in fact true.
(3) The evidence was sufficient to establish the matters necessary for proof of the second count.
(4) The order of the Magistrate dismissing count two is set aside.
(5) The respondent is convicted of refusing to provide his personal details.
Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 6(2), s 7(1)(c), s 74A(3)(a), s 75, referred to.
Haifawi v Police [2000] SASC 19; Cooper v Police [2006] SASC 339, applied.

POLICE v HUNT
[2013] SASC 178
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal
KELLY J.
Introduction

The respondent, Timothy James Hunt, was charged with three offences contrary to the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) (“the Act”), the first, using offensive language contrary to s 7(1)(c) of the Act, the second, refusing to provide his personal details to a police officer contrary to s 74A(3)(a) of the Act, and third, the offence of resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty contrary to s 6(2) of the Act.
In the early hours of the morning on 18 November 2012 at Willunga a police officer, Sergeant Clifton, approached the respondent on the basis of his suspicion that the respondent had committed the offence…

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 Hunt

Details

AGLC: Police v Hunt [2013] SASC 178
Case: [2013] SASC 178
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the Police against the decision of the Magistrate to dismiss the second count of the complaint against Timothy James Hunt, which related to the charge of refusing to provide personal details to a police officer in contravention of s 74A(3)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA). The appeal was brought on the ground that the Magistrate erred in concluding that because he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had used offensive language or resisted the police officer in the execution of his duty, he could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the matters which needed to be established before a conviction could be recorded on the second count. The appeal was allowed and the order of the Magistrate dismissing count two was set aside. The respondent was convicted of refusing to provide his personal details.

The Magistrate erred in his approach to the assessment of whether the police officer had reasonable cause to suspect the respondent had committed an offence. It was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the facts on which the police officer based his suspicion were in fact true. The evidence was sufficient to establish the matters necessary for proof of the second count. The appeal against the dismissal of count two is allowed. The order of the Magistrate dismissing count two is set aside. The respondent is convicted of refusing to provide his personal details contrary to s 74A(3)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA). The parties will be heard as to the appropriate sentence.

Orders