Legal Research
Cases
Robinett v Police

Robinett v Police

Case [2000] SASC 405 24 November 2000

Mens Rea & Intention

Contempt of Court

Admissibility of Evidence

Public Policy Discretion

Improperly Obtained Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

ROBINETT v POLICE
[2000] SASC 405

Magistrates Appeal: Criminal

1................ BLEBY J.......................... Port Germein is a small coastal town about 28 kilometres north of Port Pirie. It has one police officer. At the date of the offence the subject of this appeal it was Senior Constable Michelle Smith. On 23 May 1999 Constable Smith had occasion to arrest the appellant at Port Germein on charges of failing truly to answer questions, resisting arrest, offensive behaviour and disorderly behaviour. The arrest took place at about 2.15pm. In her cross‑examination Constable Smith assented to a description of the appellant at that time as “staggering around on the road”, “extremely unsteady on his feet”, “eyes glazed and bloodshot”, “speech being slurred, with a strong smell of liquor about him”, “a common drunk” and “continually staggering around, waving his hands in the air”. In order to effect the arrest she applied a capsicum spray to the appellant’s face.

Constable Smith had been the Port Germein police officer for five years. The appellant was well-known to her as, presumably, was she to the appellant. She had arrested the appellant on several previous occasions for disturbances, some of which had been violent domestic disturbances involving property damage and assaults. She had never been the object of acts of violence of the appellant.
Having arrested the appellant, Constable Smith was required to take him to the nearest police station with charging and detention facilities. That was at Port Pirie. During the trip to Port Pirie the appellant was kicking and punching the rear of the cage car and yelling abuse.
Capsicum spray causes extreme irritation to the mucous membrane of the eyes, causing difficulty in keeping the eyes open. Its effects are ameliorated by irrigation with water. The appellant was supplied with a bottle of water in the cage car. Shortly after arrival in Port Pirie his face was also sprayed with a water spray.
On arrival at Port Pirie and during the charging procedure the appellant was described by Constable Smith as being abusive and aggressive and severely affected by alcohol. His abusiveness became worse once he was placed in the observation cell after being charged with the Port Germein offences. Constable Smith agreed that he appeared irrational and disturbed as well as being “extremely intoxicated”. His movements in the charge room were recorded on video tape.
Sergeant Dillon, who had charge of the detention facilities at Port Pirie, described the appellant’s behaviour at the time of charging as “very very aggressive ... I attributed his aggression towards over‑indulgence of liquor and/or drugs”.
Whilst Sergeant Dillon was attempting to elicit details during the charging procedure the appellant was “most uncooperative”. The abuse continued once the appellant was placed in the observation cell. Sergeant Dillon made notes of some of what was said. The language included “Get me a fucking doctor. You burnt my eyeballs you cunt. I want a fucking doctor or I’ll sue the arse off you”. Another expression was “You white cunts”, and after…

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 Robinett v Police

Details

AGLC: Robinett v Police [2000] SASC 405
Case: [2000] SASC 405
Decision Date: 24 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robinett v Police involved an appeal against convictions for threatening to cause harm and offensive language, arising from the appellant's post-arrest behaviour while in custody. The appellant argued that the evidence of the threats should have been excluded under the public policy discretion due to various improprieties in his treatment by the police. The court found that the appellant should have been afforded his full rights under the Summary Offences Act and the Bail Act, which were not properly administered. The court held that the failure to inform the appellant of his rights did not cause or contribute to the commission of the alleged offences, and therefore, the public policy discretion did not apply. However, the court found that the police's failure to respond to the appellant's requests for medical assistance was inappropriate and could have contributed to the commission of the alleged offences. The court exercised the public policy discretion and excluded the evidence, resulting in the appeal being allowed, and the convictions and penalty being set aside. The information was dismissed in lieu of the convictions.

Orders