Shoveller v Scott - [2025] ACTSC 153

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Shoveller v Scott
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 153
Hearing Date:	29 January 2025
Decision Date:	16 April 2025
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	(1) The conviction and sentence on each of charges CAN 6235/2023 and CAN 11079/2023 are set aside and verdicts of not guilty entered in relation to those charges.
Catchwords:	APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – sword-wielding man barricaded in a car outside Parliament House – yelling man with selfie stick approaches – refuses to stay outside cordon established by police – man, yelling, arrested – convicted of hindering public officials – no legal authority for purported cordon established – magistrate erred in declining to entertain the issue – appeal allowed APPEAL – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Where magistrate did not examine the legality of cordon purportedly established by police – error led to miscarriage of justice – inappropriate to remit the matter – convictions reversed POLICE – RIGHTS, POWERS AND DUTIES – Whether police had statutory or common law power to establish cordon around critical incident – boundaries of cordon, and other operational details, not established by evidence – no power to establish a cordon relied upon before the magistrate or on appeal – availability of any such cordon power not established
Legislation Cited:	Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 (Cth) Australian Capital Territory National Land (Road Transport) Ordinance 2025 (Cth) Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth), ss 4, 8 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), Pt 9, Div 10.4A Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 38, 300, 361 Criminal Code Act 1995 (ACT), ss 149.1, Dictionary Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 218 Minister for Urban Services, Road Transport (General) (Application of Road Transport Legislation) Declaration 2004 (No 9) (DI2004–208, 6 September 2004) Minister for Urban Services, Road Transport (General) Declaration of Areas to be Defined as Road Related Areas (NI2000–44, 29 February 2000) National Land (Road Transport) Ordinance 2014 (Cth) made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 (Cth) Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988 (Cth) Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT), ss 8, 12, Dictionary Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), s 30 Terrorism (Extraordinary Temporary Powers) Act 2006 (ACT), s 84
Cases Cited:	Conway v The Queen [2002] HCA 2; 209 CLR 203 Karpany v Police [2013] SASC 124 Laipato v Truman [2017] ACTSC 351 Leonard v Morris (1975) 10 SASR 528 Plunkett v Kroemer [1934] SASR 124 Smethurst v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2020] HCA 14; 272 CLR 177 Strano v Yates [2016] ACTSC 363
Parties:	Vaughn Shoveller ( Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Self-represented ( Appellant) K McCann ( Respondent)
Solicitors Self-represented ( Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 26 of 2024
Decision Under Appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate JT Campbell Date of Decision: 23 April 2024 Case Title: Scott v Shoveller Court File Numbers: 235056; 237909

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1․Vaughn Shoveller…

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 Shoveller v Scott

Details

AGLC: Shoveller v Scott [2025] ACTSC 153
Case: [2025] ACTSC 153
Decision Date: 16 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Shoveller, was arrested and convicted of hindering public officials after he was found to have refused to stay outside a cordon established by police outside Parliament House, Canberra. Shoveller had approached the cordon while wielding a sword and yelling. The respondent, Scott, was arrested after he approached the cordon while holding a selfie stick and yelling. Scott was also convicted of hindering public officials. Shoveller appealed against his convictions to the ACT Court of Appeal.

The primary issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the police had the legal authority to establish a cordon around the critical incident, and if the cordon was established legally, whether the appellant's actions constituted the offence of hindering public officials. The Court of Appeal noted that the magistrate did not examine the legality of the cordon, which led to a miscarriage of justice. The Court found that the evidence did not establish the boundaries of the cordon or other operational details, and there was no power to establish a cordon relied upon before the magistrate or on appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the magistrate erred in declining to entertain the issue of the legality of the cordon established by the police. The Court held that the error led to a miscarriage of justice and it was inappropriate to remit the matter to the magistrate. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions and sentences on each of the charges against Shoveller, entering verdicts of not guilty in relation to those charges. The Court did not address Scott's appeal as it was not before the Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The conviction and sentence on each of charges CAN 6235/2023 and CAN 11079/2023 are set aside and verdicts of not guilty entered in relation to those charges.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.