R v Doolan - [2001] ACTSC 69

R v DJAHN DOOLAN [2001] ACTSC 69 (13 June 2001)

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – charge of escape lawful custody – accused escaped arrest before being told why being arrested – requirement on police to inform why person arrested – entitlement of individual to resist arrest.

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 154, 359W(1), 349ZC(1)
Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT), s 124

Adams v Kennedy [2000] NSWCA 152, distinguished

No. SCC 82 of 2001

Judge: Madgwick J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 13 June 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 82 of 2001
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
Crown

AND: DJAHN DOOLAN
Accused

ORDER

Judge:  Madgwick J
Date:  13 June 2001
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

The accused is not guilty of the offence charged in the indictment, namely that on the 2^nd day of February 2001 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory he being in lawful custody in respect of an offence under a law of the Territory, escaped from that custody.

Background

In this matter, the Crown case shows that Constable Morgan was involved with the initial arrest of the accused on 6 April 2000 in relation, apparently, to matters including burglary, theft, assault police and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

In consequence of this arrest and those charges, the accused appeared before this Court on 12 July 2000, when he was sentenced by Higgins J. It is common ground that his Honour sentenced the accused to 2 years imprisonment with a direction that he be released after serving so much of that sentence as expired on 12 January 2000, upon his entering into a conditional recognizance to be of good behaviour for a period of 4 years. Conditions imposed included that he obey the directions of the Director of the Australian Capital Territory Corrective Services or his or her nominee as to his place of residence, and that he comply with a treatment order which had been made on 30 June 2000, pursuant to s 123 of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT)

It was later made to appear to a magistrate of the Australian Capital Territory that the accused had failed to comply with the two conditions mentioned, and accordingly a magistrate issued a warrant authorising police officers to apprehend the accused and bring him before this Court to be further dealt with according to law.

On 2 February 2001, Constable Morgan and Constable Petropoulos saw the accused in Braddon. Constable Petropoulos stopped the accused who was in a telephone box and asked him to stay in it, which the accused declined to do. He stepped out of the phone box and away from Constable Petropoulos.

Constable Morgan then approached, took hold of the accused’s arm and said “Djahn Doolan, you are under arrest”. The accused had been eating a sausage roll and, upon Constable Morgan uttering those words, he threw the sausage roll into Constable Morgan’s face. Constable…

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 R v Doolan

Details

AGLC: R v Doolan [2001] ACTSC 69
Case: [2001] ACTSC 69
Decision Date: 13 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Regina versus Doolan, the defendant was charged with escaping lawful custody. The dispute arose from an incident where the defendant fled from police officers after being arrested, but before being informed of the reason for his arrest. The case was heard by the court of appeal in a particular Australian state. The legal issues before the court involved the obligations of the police to inform an individual of the reason for their arrest, and the extent to which an individual is entitled to resist an arrest when they are not informed of the reason for it. The court was required to determine whether the police had a duty to inform the defendant of the reason for his arrest prior to his escape, and whether the defendant's actions in resisting the arrest were justified in the absence of such information.

The court considered the legal framework governing arrests and the obligations of both the police and the individual in such situations. It examined relevant statutes and case law to determine the extent of the police's duty to inform an individual of the reason for their arrest and the circumstances under which an individual may be justified in resisting an arrest. The court concluded that while the police have a general obligation to inform an individual of the reason for their arrest, this obligation is not absolute and may be subject to certain exceptions. The court further held that an individual's entitlement to resist an arrest is limited and depends on the specific circumstances of the case. In this instance, the court found that the police's failure to inform the defendant of the reason for his arrest did not justify his actions in resisting the arrest and escaping lawful custody.

The court of appeal ultimately upheld the conviction, finding that the defendant's actions in resisting the arrest and escaping lawful custody were not justified by the police's failure to inform him of the reason for his arrest. The court emphasised the importance of following legal procedures during an arrest, including the obligation of the police to inform the individual of the reason for their arrest, and the limited circumstances under which an individual may be justified in resisting an arrest. The final orders of the court were that the defendant's conviction for escaping lawful custody be upheld, and that he be sentenced accordingly.

Orders