R v William John Murray [2008] NSWDC 226

R v William John Murray [2008] NSWDC 226

The officers had reasonable grounds to believe the Accused had breached bail and were empowered to arrest him. The Accused was informed he was under arrest, did not cooperate, and the officers' escalating use of force was a response to his increasing resistance and remained reasonably necessary, particularly after he attempted to obtain Constable Evans' gun. The officers were therefore acting in the execution of duty, the apprehension and custody were lawful, and the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused resisted and assaulted the officers, attempted to use an offensive weapon to prevent lawful apprehension, escaped lawful custody, and was not acting in self defence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone on Indictment / Verdicts After Trial
Outcome
Verdicts of guilty on all counts
Legal Topics
['resist Police in Execution of Duty' 'assault Police in Execution of Duty' 'attempt to Use Offensive Weapon to Prevent Lawful Apprehension' 'escape From Lawful Custody' 'self Defence' 'bail Arrest Power' 'reasonable Force by Police']
['criminal Law'] ['resist Police in Execution of Duty' 'assault Police in Execution of Duty' 'attempt to Use Offensive Weapon to Prevent Lawful Apprehension' 'escape From Lawful Custody' 'self Defence' 'bail Arrest Power' 'reasonable Force by Police']

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 Trial by Judge Alone on Indictment / Verdicts After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether police officers held a belief on reasonable grounds under s.50 Bail Act 1978 that the Accused had failed to comply with bail conditions and were empowered to arrest him.' 'Whether the police officers used only such force as was reasonably necessary and remained acting in the execution of their duty.' 'Whether the Accused resisted and assaulted the police officers.' "Whether the Accused attempted to obtain and use Constable Evans' firearm to prevent his lawful apprehension." 'Whether the Accused was in lawful custody and escaped from that custody.' 'Whether the Crown disproved self defence beyond reasonable doubt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The officers had reasonable grounds to believe the Accused had breached bail and were empowered to arrest him. The Accused was informed he was under arrest, did not cooperate, and the officers' escalating use of force was a response to his increasing resistance and remained reasonably necessary, particularly after he attempted to obtain Constable Evans' gun. The officers were therefore acting in the execution of duty, the apprehension and custody were lawful, and the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused resisted and assaulted the officers, attempted to use an offensive weapon to prevent lawful apprehension, escaped lawful custody, and was not acting in self defence.

Court Disposition

Verdicts of guilty on all counts

Orders

  • ['Verdicts of guilty on all counts']