Davis v R [2024] NSWDC 414

Davis v R [2024] NSWDC 414

SC Lees lawfully arrested the appellant under cl 7 sch 3 of the Road Transport Act 2013 and s 99 LEPRA following a positive drug test. While SC Lees did not expressly state his name or place of duty, and was not explicit about the arrest at the outset, s 204A LEPRA provides that this does not render the arrest unlawful. The appellant knew he was not free to leave. The appellant's conduct justified the use of force at the time of arrest. The requirements for resisting police in the execution of duty were satisfied, and the appeal against conviction was not made out.

Parties
Appellant: Jed Davis; Respondent: Regina (Crown)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Conviction Appeal From Local Court to District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Resisting Police, Lawfulness of Arrest, Appellate Procedure
Criminal Law Resisting Police Lawfulness of Arrest Appellate Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jed Davis

Appellant

Regina (Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Conviction Appeal From Local Court to District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant resisted SC Lees while SC Lees was executing his duty as a police officer
  2. 2 Whether the arrest was lawful under the Road Transport Act 2013 and Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether failure to comply with s 202 LEPRA rendered the arrest unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

SC Lees lawfully arrested the appellant under cl 7 sch 3 of the Road Transport Act 2013 and s 99 LEPRA following a positive drug test. While SC Lees did not expressly state his name or place of duty, and was not explicit about the arrest at the outset, s 204A LEPRA provides that this does not render the arrest unlawful. The appellant knew he was not free to leave. The appellant's conduct justified the use of force at the time of arrest. The requirements for resisting police in the execution of duty were satisfied, and the appeal against conviction was not made out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The decision of the learned Magistrate is upheld.
  • The appeal is dismissed.