State of New South Wales v Bouffler

The case of *State of New South Wales v Bouffler* concerned a trespass to land claim brought by the respondent against the appellant, the State of New South Wales. Six police officers entered the respondent's house without his consent, and a further eight officers entered his property without consent. The officers relied on sections 9 and 10 of the *Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002* (NSW) for their authority to enter. The dispute centred on whether the officers possessed the requisite state of mind to satisfy these provisions, and whether this state of mind needed to be held individually by each officer. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether sections 9 and 10 of the *Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002* (NSW) required each police officer to individually possess the specified state of mind, or if the collective state of mind of the officers was sufficient. The court also had to consider the meaning of "reasonable grounds" within the context of these sections and whether the purpose and context of the Act indicated a meaning different from or qualifying the plain meaning of the statutory language. Furthermore, the relationship between sections 10 and 99 of the Act was examined, specifically whether entry under section 10 necessitated a lawful arrest under section 99, or if section 10 operated independently. Finally, the court considered the meaning of "breach of the peace" under section 9 of the Act, including whether it required actual or threatened violence and whether the threat of harm had to be directed at a third person.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the statutory provisions, particularly sections 9 and 10 of the *Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002* (NSW), did not require each individual officer to possess the requisite state of mind. Instead, the court held that the collective knowledge and reasonable grounds of the officers acting together were sufficient to authorise entry. The court found that the purpose of the Act supported this interpretation, aiming to facilitate law enforcement activities. It was also determined that section 10 of the Act was not a derivative of section 99, meaning entry under section 10 did not require a lawful arrest under section 99. The court further clarified that a "breach of the peace" under section 9 could encompass a threat of harm to a third person, even if not immediate violence.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and cross-appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the orders of the trial judge, entering judgment for the State of New South Wales. The cross-appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the State of New South Wales at first instance and 70 per cent of its costs on the appeal.