Prior v Mole

The case of *Prior v Mole* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by the appellant, Mr Prior, against the decision of the Northern Territory Court of Appeal. The dispute arose from Mr Prior's apprehension by police officers while he was consuming alcohol in a public place near licensed premises. Mr Prior was subsequently convicted of offences committed while in custody, which he sought to have quashed.

The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the police officers held reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Prior was likely to commit an offence under section 101U(1) of the *Liquor Act* (NT), which prohibits the consumption of liquor in a regulated place. This involved considering whether the officers' subjective belief was supported by objective circumstances and whether their policing experience constituted a valid basis for forming such a belief. Secondly, the Court had to consider whether the decision to apprehend Mr Prior exceeded the limits of the statutory powers of apprehension, particularly given that the maximum penalty for the offence of drinking liquor in a regulated place was forfeiture of the liquor and the issue of a contravention notice.

The High Court, in a majority decision, found that there was an insufficient basis in the objective circumstances to support a reasonable belief that Mr Prior was likely to continue consuming liquor in contravention of the *Liquor Act*. While acknowledging that Mr Prior was consuming liquor in a regulated place, was intoxicated, and behaving belligerently, the Court held that these factors alone, or in combination, did not establish a reasonable likelihood that he would obtain further alcohol and continue to consume it in contravention of the prohibition if he had not been apprehended. The Court emphasised the distinction between a reasonable suspicion and a reasonable belief, and that the latter requires a higher degree of certainty.

The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Court of Appeal was set aside. This had the effect of reinstating the order of Southwood J, which quashed Mr Prior's convictions for offences committed while in custody and acquitted him of those offences.