Samuels v Stokes [1973] HCA 62

Samuels v Stokes [1973] HCA 62

The respondent's remaining stationary in the Adelaide street intersection as part of the demonstration, after the procession had stopped and while traffic was obstructed, amounted to loitering within s. 18 of the Police Offences Act, 1953-1972 S.A. Loitering in that provision did not require proof of idleness or an unlawful purpose. Section 6 of the Public Assemblies Act, 1972 S.A. was, at most, a defence or answer to the charge and was not an ingredient the prosecution had to negative; no such defence was raised or supported by evidence. The special magistrate's determination was therefore correct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
High Court Appeal by Special Leave in a Summary Criminal Matter Concerning an Alleged Offence Under S. 18 of the Police Offences Act, 1953 1972 S.a. / Appeal From an Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia Reversing the Special Magistrate's Determination and Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['loitering in a Public Place' 'police Request to Cease Loitering' 'public Assemblies and Processions' 'obstruction of a Public Place' 'burden of Proof and Statutory Defences']
['criminal Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'public Order Law'] ['loitering in a Public Place' 'police Request to Cease Loitering' 'public Assemblies and Processions' 'obstruction of a Public Place' 'burden of Proof and Statutory Defences']

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

High Court Appeal by Special Leave in a Summary Criminal Matter Concerning an Alleged Offence Under S. 18 of the Police Offences Act, 1953 1972 S.a. / Appeal From an Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia Reversing the Special Magistrate's Determination and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent was loitering in a public place within the meaning of s. 18 of the Police Offences Act, 1953-1972 S.A.' 'Whether loitering under s. 18 required proof that the respondent lingered idly or for an unlawful purpose.' 'Whether s. 6 of the Public Assemblies Act, 1972 S.A. was an element the prosecution had to negative or a defence for the respondent to raise.' "Whether the evidence supported the special magistrate's finding of guilt."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's remaining stationary in the Adelaide street intersection as part of the demonstration, after the procession had stopped and while traffic was obstructed, amounted to loitering within s. 18 of the Police Offences Act, 1953-1972 S.A. Loitering in that provision did not require proof of idleness or an unlawful purpose. Section 6 of the Public Assemblies Act, 1972 S.A. was, at most, a defence or answer to the charge and was not an ingredient the prosecution had to negative; no such defence was raised or supported by evidence. The special magistrate's determination was therefore correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia set aside.' 'In lieu thereof, order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs.' "Pursuant to the undertaking given on the application for special leave the appellant will pay the respondent's costs of this appeal."]