Ward, Ani Rose v Visser, Claas - [1999] TASSC 68

[1999] TASSC 68

CITATION: Ward v Visser [1999] TASSC 68

PARTIES:  WARD, Ani Rose
  v
  VISSER, Claas

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 29/1998
DELIVERED ON:  7 June 1999
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATES:  23 April 1999
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Particular offences - Offences against peace and public order - Assaulting, resisting, hindering, or obstructing police officer - Officer acting in execution of duty - In the ordinary course - Protester refusing to cease blocking of road when directed - Police officer wishing to allow police and forestry vehicles to proceed but not other vehicles - Whether officer acting in the execution of his duty.

Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas), s34B(1)(a)(i).
Aust Dig Criminal Law [335]

Criminal Law - Particular offences - Miscellaneous offences and matters - Other offences - Interfering with the operation of a vehicle involved in forest operations - Blocking of road - Forestry vehicles unable to proceed - Whether interfering with the operation of a vehicle - Transport operations related to and connected with harvesting of forest products - Whether vehicles involved in "forest operations" - Whether in an area in which forest operations are being carried out.
Forestry Act 1920 (Tas), s46(1A).

Aust Dig Criminal Law [416]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  S B McElwaine
             Respondent:  M M G Miller
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  S B McElwaine
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment ID Number: [1999] TASSC 68
Number of paragraphs: 22

Serial No 68/1999
File No LCA 29/1998

ANI ROSE WARD v CLAAS VISSER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CRAWFORD J
7 June 1999

In a court of petty sessions two charges against the applicant were found proved. The notice to review refers to the applicant having been convicted of them, but I think that is incorrect. She has not yet been sentenced. I will deal separately with each charge.

Wilfully obstructing a police officer

She was found guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer contrary to the Police Offences Act 1935, s34B(1)(a)(i). Particulars of the charge, as contained in the complaint, were that on 9 March 1998, at Meander, she wilfully obstructed "Sergeant McKenzie and other police officers in the execution of their duty, by attaching herself to a gate in Scotts Road and refusing to remove yourself from that gate when directed to do so by Sergeant McKenzie who with other Police Officers was attempting to maintain a free flow of traffic on Scotts Road". The applicant does not attack the finding of the learned magistrate that she obstructed Sergeant McKenzie and other police officers. The grounds of the motion concern whether the officers were acting in the execution of their duty at the relevant time.

The applicant was in a State forest which was Crown land and she was on a forest road. At that point on Scotts Road a boom gate had been erected across it. Forestry workers wished to drive their vehicles along Scotts Road, through the position of the boom gate, and on…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ward, Ani Rose v Visser, Claas and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] TASSC 68
Decision Date: 7 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Ani Rose Ward, was involved in a protest against logging operations in a state forest, resulting in two charges against her being found proved in a court of petty sessions. The charges related to obstructing a police officer in the execution of their duty and unlawfully interfering with a vehicle involved in forest operations. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of Tasmania for review. The central legal issues involved whether the police officers were acting in the lawful execution of their duties and whether the applicant's actions constituted interference with a vehicle involved in forest operations as defined by the Forestry Act 1920. The court found that the police officer was indeed acting in the lawful execution of his duty to ensure a free flow of traffic for forestry workers and police personnel, and the applicant's obstruction amounted to a wilful obstruction of a duty the officer was required at law to execute. The court also found that the applicant's actions constituted an interference with the operation of a vehicle involved in forest operations, as her protest actions forced forestry vehicles to stop, thereby thwarting their purpose as a means of transport.

The reasoning of the court was grounded in the statutory provisions of the Police Offences Act 1935 and the Forestry Act 1920. The court examined the evidence and submissions to determine if the police officer was acting in the lawful execution of their duty. It concluded that the officer's duty extended to ensuring a free flow of traffic for forestry workers and police personnel, despite the road being temporarily closed to the public. The court further examined the definition of "forest operations" and found that the applicant's actions interfered with the operation of vehicles involved in transport operations related to harvesting forest products. The court held that the applicant's protest actions, which forced forestry vehicles to stop, amounted to an interference with the operation of those vehicles. Therefore, the motion to review was dismissed, affirming the findings of the court of petty sessions.

Orders