Legal Research
Cases
Police v Majeed

Police v Majeed

Case [2024] ACTMC 19 3 September 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Police v Majeed
Citation:	[2024] ACTMC 19
Hearing Dates:	25 June 2024
Decision Date:	3 September 2024
Before:	Magistrate Temby
Decision:	The Defendant has a case to answer
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Escape from arrest – no case submission – requirement in s 160 of the Crimes Act for a police officer to have arrested a person in respect of an offence – whether s 56A of the Bail Act is an offence provision – whether an arrest for a contravention of a bail condition is an arrest in respect of an offence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 160, 212, 219 Bail Act 1992 ss 49, 56A, Legislation Act 2001, ss 139, 142 Magistrates Court Act 1930, s 42 Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 30 Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance (No.2) 1988, s 358AC Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 46, 47, 48A Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 1987
Cases Cited:	May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654 DPP (NSW) v Elskaf [2012] NSWSC 21 R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1 Kingswell v R (1985) 159 CLR 264 Andrews v Thomson [2018] ACTCA 53 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Martino Developments Pty Ltd v John Doughty [2008] VSC 517 The Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd v Reilly [1941] VLR 110 PNJ v R (2009) 252 ALR 612
Parties:	Katie Mary Wales (Informant) Saleh Hassan Majeed ( Defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions ACT Legal Aid ( Defendant)
File Numbers:	CC 9977 of 2024 CC 9978 of 2024

MAGISTRATE TEMBY:

Introduction

1․On 11 October 2023, Constables Koppie and Wales were on patrol in Isabella Plains, where they encountered the Defendant, Mr Majeed. They recognised him because he was required to report to the Tuggeranong police station, to which they were both attached, as part of his bail conditions.
2․It is alleged that Constable Wales arrested Mr Majeed for breaching his bail conditions, but that he then escaped before being captured again about 100 metres away. He is charged with an offence of having been ‘lawfully arrested in respect of an offence under a law of the Territory’, he escaped from that arrest..
3․At the conclusion of the Prosecution case, Mr Majeed made a “no case” submission. For the reasons which follow, I do not accept that submission. Mr Majeed has a case to answer.

The no case submission

4․Mr Majeed is charged under s 160 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act). That provision states, relevantly (emphasis added):
Escaping
A person who has been lawfully arrested … in respect of an offence against a law of the Territory … and who escapes from that arrest … commits an offence.
5․The parties agree that the elements of the charged offence are:
(a)The Defendant had been lawfully arrested.
(b)The Defendant was arrested in respect of an offence against a law of the Territory.
(c)The Defendant…

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 Majeed

Details

AGLC: Police v Majeed [2024] ACTMC 19
Case: [2024] ACTMC 19
Decision Date: 3 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Police sought a no case submission in respect of charges laid against the defendant, Majeed, for escaping from arrest. The defendant was arrested for contravening a condition of his bail not to leave certain premises, and he was charged with escaping lawful custody under section 160 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The defendant argued that he could not be lawfully arrested for a contravention of bail conditions and therefore could not be lawfully arrested in respect of an offence, and so could not be guilty of escaping from lawful custody. The court was required to determine whether the arrest was in respect of an offence and whether the contravention of a bail condition was an offence. The court found that the arrest was in respect of an offence because section 56A of the Bail Act 1978 (NSW) was an offence provision and contravening a bail condition was an offence. As such, the defendant had a case to answer.

The court found that the arrest was in respect of an offence because section 56A of the Bail Act 1978 (NSW) was an offence provision. The court found that contravening a bail condition was an offence because it was expressly stated in section 56A of the Bail Act 1978 (NSW) to be an offence. The court found that the defendant had a case to answer because it was a question of fact as to whether the defendant had escaped from lawful custody. The court found that it was not necessary to consider whether there was any other legal impediment to the defendant’s arrest, as it was sufficient to find that the arrest was in respect of an offence. The court found that the defendant had a case to answer on the charge of escaping lawful custody.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Defendant has a case to answer

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Police v Majeed [2024] ACTMC 19

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 19 of 19 shown

Andrews v Thomson
[2018] ACTCA 53

…ay v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654 DPP (NSW) v Elskaf [2012] NSWSC 21 R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1 Kingswell v R (1985) 159 CLR 264 Andrews v Thomson [2018] ACTCA 53 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Martino Developments Pty Ltd v John Doughty [2008] VSC 517 The Trustees Exe…
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Elskaf
[2012] NSWSC 21

…May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654 DPP (NSW) v Elskaf [2012] NSWSC 21 R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1 Kingswell v R (1985) 159 CLR 264 Andrews v Thomson [2018] ACTCA 53 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Martino Developments Pty Ltd v John Doughty [2008] VSC 517 The Trustees Ex…
PNJ v The Queen
[2009] HCA 6

…1998) 194 CLR 355 Martino Developments Pty Ltd v John Doughty [2008] VSC 517 The Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd v Reilly [1941] VLR 110 PNJ v R (2009) 252 ALR 612…
Martino Developments Pty Ltd v Doughty
[2008] VSC 517

…s v Thomson [2018] ACTCA 53 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Martino Developments Pty Ltd v John Doughty [2008] VSC 517 The Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd v Reilly [1941] VLR 110 PNJ v R (2009) 252 ALR 612…
DPP v Lee
[2006] NSWSC 270 Para 31

…ion of a no case submission is based upon all of the prosecution's evidence, if accepted, and (i) taken at its highest and strongest: DPP v Lee [2006] NSWSC 270 at [31]; Wunderwald at [28]; (ii) even if it is tenuous, inherently weak or vague: Doney v The Queen [1990] HCA 51; 171 CLR 207 at 214-5; (iii) unless the…
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden
[2001] NSWCA 32

…sion, which is determined by the Court as a matter of law: Cox v Salt (1994) 12 WAR 12 at 14; Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [2001] NSWCA 32; 122 A Crim R 166 at [48]- [50] per Ipp AJA (Powell and Giles JJA agreeing); (b) the standard of proof to be applied in a no case submission is proof beyon…
R v Serratore
[2000] NSWSC 696 Para 127

…fendant could be lawfully convicted of the offence charged: May v O'Sullivan [1955] HCA 38; 92 CLR 654 at 658; R v Serratore [1999] NSWCCA 377; (1999) 48 NSWLR 101 at [127] per Dunford J (Greg James J agreeing); (d) the determination of a no case submission is based upon all of the prosecution's evidence, if accepted,…
R v Serratore
[1999] NSWCCA 377

…he evidence, the defendant could be lawfully convicted of the offence charged: May v O'Sullivan [1955] HCA 38; 92 CLR 654 at 658; R v Serratore [1999] NSWCCA 377; (1999) 48 NSWLR 101 at [127] per Dunford J (Greg James J agreeing); (d) the determination of a no case submission is based upon all of the prosecution's e…
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority
[1998] HCA 53

…Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1 Kingswell v R (1985) 159 CLR 264 Andrews v Thomson [2018] ACTCA 53 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Martino Developments Pty Ltd v John Doughty [2008] VSC 517 The Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd v Reilly [1941] VLR 110 PNJ v R (2009) 252 ALR 612…
R v Barlow
[1997] HCA 19

…May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654 DPP (NSW) v Elskaf [2012] NSWSC 21 R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1 Kingswell v R (1985) 159 CLR 264 Andrews v Thomson [2018] ACTCA 53 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Martino Developments Pty Ltd v John Doughty [2008] VSC 517 The Trustees Exe…
QUESTION of LAW RESERVED on ACQUITTAL PURSUANT to SECTION 350(1a) CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT (No 2 of 1993) No. 4152 Judgment No. SCCRM 93/90 Number of Pages - 10 Criminal Law and Procedure - Constitutional Law...
[1993] SASC 4152

…rosecutor [1982] 1 AC 136 at 151; and (iv) unless the evidence is manifestly self-contradictory or the product of a disorderly mind: R v Bilick (1984) 36 SASR 321 at 337; Cox at 15; Marsden at [50].…
Doney v The Queen
[1990] HCA 51

…and strongest: DPP v Lee [2006] NSWSC 270 at [31]; Wunderwald at [28]; (ii) even if it is tenuous, inherently weak or vague: Doney v The Queen [1990] HCA 51; 171 CLR 207 at 214-5; (iii) unless the evidence is inherently incredible: Haw Tua Tau v Public Prosecutor [1982] 1 AC 136 at 151; and (iv) unless the evid…
Smith v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
[1987] HCA 48

…ous cases: see, Powers v Maher [1959] HCA 52; (1952) 103 CLR 478; at 484-485, per Kitto J; Smith v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1987] HCA 48; (1987) 164 CLR 513 at 533, per Toohey J; Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board v Irving as Administrator of Bettaform Constructions (SA) Pty Ltd (8 May 1997,…
Kingswell v The Queen
[1985] HCA 72

…May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654 DPP (NSW) v Elskaf [2012] NSWSC 21 R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1 Kingswell v R (1985) 159 CLR 264 Andrews v Thomson [2018] ACTCA 53 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Martino Developments Pty Ltd v John Doughty [2008] VSC 517 The Trustees Execu…
R v Murphy
[1985] HCA 50

…(Powell and Giles JJA agreeing); (b) the standard of proof to be applied in a no case submission is proof beyond a reasonable doubt: R v Murphy (1985) 4 NSWLR 42 at 69B; (c) the question to be determined is whether on the evidence, the defendant could be lawfully convicted of the offence charged: May v O'Sullivan [1…
Zanetti v Hill
[1962] HCA 62

…to that case. There is no reason why a weakness in the prosecution case may not be eked out by something in the case for the defence: Zanetti v Hill [1962] HCA 62; 108 CLR 433 at 442-443 per Kitto J; Wunderwald at [26]; (f) a no case submission is to be kept distinct from any subsequent decision involving a que…
Powers v Maher
[1959] HCA 52

…re Boreham J adopted the comments of Mann CJ . These or similar observations have been cited in numerous cases: see, Powers v Maher [1959] HCA 52; (1952) 103 CLR 478; at 484-485, per Kitto J; Smith v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1987] HCA 48; (1987) 164 CLR 513 at 533, per Toohey J; Construction Industry Lo…
May v O'Sullivan
[1955] HCA 38

…May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654 DPP (NSW) v Elskaf [2012] NSWSC 21 R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1 Kingswell v R (1985) 159 CLR 264 Andrews v Thomson [2018] ACTCA 53 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Martino Developments Pty Ltd v John Doughty [2008] VSC 517 The Trustees Exec…
[1982] 1 AC 136
[1982] 1 AC 136

…gue: Doney v The Queen [1990] HCA 51; 171 CLR 207 at 214-5; (iii) unless the evidence is inherently incredible: Haw Tua Tau v Public Prosecutor [1982] 1 AC 136 at 151; and (iv) unless the evidence is manifestly self-contradictory or the product of a disorderly mind: R v Bilick (1984) 36 SASR 321 at 337; Cox at 15;…

Legislation cited in this decision · 9

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
46, 47, 48A 7 mentions
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
160, 212, 219 4 mentions
Legislation Act 2001 (ACT)
139, 142 3 mentions
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA)
30 2 mentions
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT)
42 2 mentions
Bail Act 1992 (ACT)
1 mention
Bail Amendment Act 2004 (ACT)
1 mention
Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 1987 (Cth)
1 mention
Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2019 (ACT)
1 mention