P v Patrick BUCKELY [2010] NSWLC 8

P v Patrick BUCKELY [2010] NSWLC 8

The evidence was admitted because the initial removal of the accused from the police station foyer did not amount to an arrest; if it did, the circumstances of the accused's offensive, intoxicated and disruptive conduct made the reason obvious and justified police action. The later arrest was lawful because the accused continued and escalated the offensive conduct, police did not know his identity or address, passive dialogue would have been pointless, and arrest was authorised under s 99(3)(b) of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to prevent continuation or repetition of the conduct. Even if there had been illegality or impropriety, any contravention was minor and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Offensive Language and Resisting Police / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence After Not Guilty Pleas and Hearing
Outcome
Evidence admitted; the Court indicated it would hear the parties as to what course the case would take.
Legal Topics
['lawfulness of Arrest' 'reasons for Arrest' 'offensive Language' 'resisting Police' 'exclusion of Improperly or Illegally Obtained Evidence' 'use of Alternatives to Arrest' 'law Enforcement (powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 S 99' 'evidence Act 1995 S 138']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'police Powers'] ['lawfulness of Arrest' 'reasons for Arrest' 'offensive Language' 'resisting Police' 'exclusion of Improperly or Illegally Obtained Evidence' 'use of Alternatives to Arrest' 'law Enforcement (powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 S 99' 'evidence Act 1995 S 138']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Offensive Language and Resisting Police / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence After Not Guilty Pleas and Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the accused's removal from the Albury Police Station foyer by Sgt. Owen amounted to an unlawful arrest." 'If there was an arrest, whether the accused was sufficiently aware of the reasons for it.' 'Whether police were required to proceed by means other than arrest, such as a Field Court Attendance Notice or Further Court Attendance Notice.' 'Whether the arrest was justified under s. 99(3)(b) of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to prevent continuation or repetition of the offence or another offence.' "Whether evidence of the accused's conduct should be excluded under section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 as illegally or improperly obtained."]

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was admitted because the initial removal of the accused from the police station foyer did not amount to an arrest; if it did, the circumstances of the accused's offensive, intoxicated and disruptive conduct made the reason obvious and justified police action. The later arrest was lawful because the accused continued and escalated the offensive conduct, police did not know his identity or address, passive dialogue would have been pointless, and arrest was authorised under s 99(3)(b) of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to prevent continuation or repetition of the conduct. Even if there had been illegality or impropriety, any contravention was minor and...

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted; the Court indicated it would hear the parties as to what course the case would take.

Orders

  • ['The evidence is admitted.']