Police v Slobodian

The appeal in Police v Slobodian concerns the Crown's appeal against the decision of a magistrate who dismissed charges of trespass and resisting police. These charges arose from the respondent's disruptive behaviour at a Centrelink office and his subsequent arrest. The primary issues at trial were the terms of the police direction given to the respondent and the manner in which he left the premises. The respondent denied receiving an express direction to leave and claimed an "honest claim of right" defence to the trespass charge, asserting that he left the premises voluntarily and believed he was entitled to re-enter to collect documents belonging to his partner. He also denied resisting police, claiming self-defence against an alleged unlawful assault. The magistrate did not resolve the factual disputes between the respondent's and prosecution's evidence, nor did they make material findings of fact and credit.

The legal issues before the court involved the obligation of the primary judge to make material findings of fact, the requisite fault element for the section 17A offence, and the availability of the "honest claim of right" defence. The court examined whether the magistrate erred in finding that the prosecution had not established the fault element for the trespass offence beyond reasonable doubt and whether the magistrate erred in finding that the prosecution had not disproved the respondent's defence of self-defence beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the magistrate erred in law by failing to address the issues in dispute and make relevant findings. The fault element for the section 17A offence is knowing or reckless re-entry with an awareness that permission to be on the premises has been refused. The prosecution evidence established that the respondent was lawfully directed by police to leave the premises and that the section 17A fault element was met beyond reasonable doubt. The "claim of right" defence was not available to the trespass charge. The dismissal of the resist police charge was set aside due to the magistrate's failure to make adequate findings of fact.

The Supreme Court of South Australia allowed the appeal and set aside the magistrate's order dismissing the charge of trespass, finding that the magistrate had erred in law. The court concluded that the magistrate's failure to make relevant findings and address the disputed issues meant a retrial was necessary to avoid a risk of miscarriage of justice. The court also set aside the dismissal of the resist police charge due to the magistrate's failure to make adequate findings of fact on this charge.