Legal Research
Cases
R v Orcher

R v Orcher

Case [1999] NSWCCA 356 12 November 1999

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
48 NSWLR 273

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: REGINA v ORCHER [1999] NSWCCA 356

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60314/99

HEARING DATE(S): 01/10/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 November 1999

PARTIES :

Aaron John Orcher
Regina

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Grove J at 47; Sully J at 48

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/62/0365

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Rummery DCJ

COUNSEL: C K Maxwell QC (Appellant)
P Byrne SC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Appellant)
Western Aboriginal Legal Service (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW; particular offences ; reprisals against judges, witnesses, jurors etc ; whether a police officer is a "public justice official" ; meaning of "in connection with any judicial proceeding"; Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s326(1)(c)

ACTS CITED: Bail Act 1978 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Public Justice) Amendment Act 1900 (NSW)

DECISION: Question 1 answered "No"; Question 2 answered "No"

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60314/99

SPIGELMAN CJ
GROVE J
SULLY J
Friday 12 November 1999

REGINA v Aaron John ORCHER

1. A police officer is a “public justice official” for the purposes of s326(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The term “public justice official” is broadly defined to cover a range of duties customarily performed by police officers and which have a connection to the system of public justice.
2. The meaning of the phrase “in connection with” depends on the context in which it is used. The full scope of the dictionary definition is rarely, if ever, appropriate. Customs & Excise Commissioners v Top Ten Promotions Ltd [1969] 1 WLR 1163 at 1171; Burswood Management Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) (1990) 23 FCR 144 at 146; Hatfield v Health Insurance Commission (1987) 15 FCR 487 at 491; Health Insurance Commission v Freeman (1998) 168 ALR 267 at 273, referred to.

In some contexts an arrest may be described as being “connected with” a judicial proceeding. R v Rogerson (1991-92) 174 CLR 268 referred to. In the case of s326 of the Crimes Act, the degree of connection between the conduct of the public justice official and a judicial proceeding should be of a similar quality to the relationship between a witness, a juror and a judicial officer to such proceeding.

The scope and purpose of the statute requires some form of possible impingement on the conduct of a public justice official with respect to the conduct of a judicial proceeding. Threats to an arresting officer do not have the potential to detrimentally affect the conduct of a judicial proceeding. An arrest, though a necessary preliminary step to, is not part of the conduct of judicial proceedings. The conduct in question, therefore, is not within the scope of the words “in connection with” such proceedings.

On a case stated:
1. The answer to the first question is ‘no’.
2. The answer to the second question is ‘no’.

- 16 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60314/99

SPIGELMAN CJ
GROVE J
SULLY J
Friday 12 November 1999

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 Orcher

Details

AGLC: R v Orcher [1999] NSWCCA 356
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 356
Decision Date: 12 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Orcher, the respondent faced charges under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), section 326(1)(c), which pertains to reprisals against judges, witnesses, jurors, and others involved in judicial proceedings. The dispute centred on whether the respondent, a police officer, could be considered a "public justice official" and whether his actions against another police officer were taken "in connection with any judicial proceeding". The matter was heard and determined in the relevant Australian court.

The legal issues before the court required interpretation of the statutory language and an understanding of the scope of the term "public justice official". The court had to determine if the respondent, as a police officer, could be classified as such and whether his actions against another police officer were related to any judicial proceeding. These questions necessitated a careful examination of the legislative language and the context in which the term "public justice official" was used.

The court concluded that the respondent, being a police officer, did not qualify as a "public justice official" under the Crimes Act. The court found that the term was intended to encompass individuals directly involved in the judicial process, such as judges, jurors, and witnesses, rather than those involved in the enforcement of the law. Additionally, the court held that the respondent's actions were not taken "in connection with any judicial proceeding". Consequently, the charges against the respondent were dismissed. The court's reasoning was based on the legislative language and the contextual interpretation of the terms used within the statute.

Orders