Prior v Mole [2017] HCA 10

Prior v Mole [2017] HCA 10

By majority (Kiefel, Bell, Nettle and Gordon JJ), the apprehension of Mr Prior was lawful as the police officer held the requisite subjective beliefs and had reasonable grounds, based on the appellant's behaviour and prior policing experience, for believing the appellant, because of his intoxication, was likely to commit the offence of drinking alcohol in a regulated place. The exercise of the power did not exceed its lawful limits nor warrant exclusion of evidence. Gageler J, dissenting, would have allowed the appeal on the basis the objective facts were insufficient for reasonable grounds to form the belief required by s 128(1)(c).

Parties
Appellant: Anthony Prior; Respondent: Robert Mole
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to the High Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed (by majority)
Legal Topics
Protective Custody, Powers of Police, Reasonable Grounds for Apprehension, Apprehension Without Warrant, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Protective Custody Powers of Police Reasonable Grounds for Apprehension Apprehension Without Warrant Statutory Interpretation

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Prior

Appellant

Robert Mole

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were reasonable grounds for the police officer's belief that the appellant, because of intoxication, was likely to commit an offence or may intimidate, alarm or cause substantial annoyance to people under s 128(1)(c) of the Police Administration Act (NT)
  2. 2 Whether reliance on policing experience is a valid basis for forming reasonable grounds for belief
  3. 3 Whether the apprehension power was lawfully exercised in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

By majority (Kiefel, Bell, Nettle and Gordon JJ), the apprehension of Mr Prior was lawful as the police officer held the requisite subjective beliefs and had reasonable grounds, based on the appellant's behaviour and prior policing experience, for believing the appellant, because of his intoxication, was likely to commit the offence of drinking alcohol in a regulated place. The exercise of the power did not exceed its lawful limits nor warrant exclusion of evidence. Gageler J, dissenting, would have allowed the appeal on the basis the objective facts were insufficient for reasonable grounds to form the belief required by s 128(1)(c).

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed (by majority)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed