Roy v O'Neill [2020] HCA 45

Roy v O'Neill [2020] HCA 45

By majority, the High Court held that the police held an implied licence to enter the curtilage of Ms Roy's premises to check on DVO compliance and Mr Johnson’s welfare. Entry for that purpose did not render the police trespassers. However, the request for a breath test was a coercive step; such a direction exceeded the licence unless supported by statutory authority. Where that authority arose—here, after observing indicia of intoxication—entry and the direction were lawful. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Aileen Roy; Respondent: Julie O'Neill
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia Appeal From Supreme Court of the Northern Territory
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trespass, Admissibility of Evidence, Common Law Implied Licence, Domestic Violence Order, Police Entry Onto Private Property, Coercive Powers
Evidence Criminal Law Police Powers Property Law Trespass Admissibility of Evidence Common Law Implied Licence Domestic Violence Order +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aileen Roy

Appellant

Julie O'Neill

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia Appeal From Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police officers had an implied licence to enter the curtilage of private premises for a domestic violence compliance check; application of the implied licence to police conducting a check where there is a possibility of exercising coercive powers; whether the actions of police requesting a breath test exceeded the scope of the implied licence and amounted to trespass; whether evidence of the breath test was lawfully obtained

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the High Court held that the police held an implied licence to enter the curtilage of Ms Roy's premises to check on DVO compliance and Mr Johnson’s welfare. Entry for that purpose did not render the police trespassers. However, the request for a breath test was a coercive step; such a direction exceeded the licence unless supported by statutory authority. Where that authority arose—here, after observing indicia of intoxication—entry and the direction were lawful. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed