R v Kershaw [2022] NSWDC 90

R v Kershaw [2022] NSWDC 90

Police officers were not acting in the execution of their duties because it was reasonably practicable to provide the accused with the reason for arrest prior to commencing the act of arrest, but they failed to do so, rendering the arrest unlawful.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial; Verdict and Orders
Outcome
counts 3 and 5; not guilty; accused acquitted
Legal Topics
['assault' 'assault Police Officer' 'intimidation' 'criminal Procedure' 'arrest and Powers of Police']
['criminal Law'] ['assault' 'assault Police Officer' 'intimidation' 'criminal Procedure' 'arrest and Powers of 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; Verdict and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Senior Constables Kaela Dekort and Daniel Kinghorne were acting in execution of their duties when assaulted by the accused' 'Whether the arrest was lawful under s 60(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and LEPRA' 'Whether it was reasonably practicable for police to provide the accused with the reason for arrest under s 202 Law Enforcement (Powers & Responsibility) Act 2002 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

Police officers were not acting in the execution of their duties because it was reasonably practicable to provide the accused with the reason for arrest prior to commencing the act of arrest, but they failed to do so, rendering the arrest unlawful.

Court Disposition

counts 3 and 5; not guilty; accused acquitted

Orders

  • ['The accused is acquitted of Counts 3 and 5' 'Matter listed for sentence on 10 June 2022 at 10am in Sydney for counts 1, 2, 4, and 6' 'The offender is to attend in person' 'The parties are directed to comply with Practice Note 20']