Noordhof, J.J. v. Bartlett, M.J. [1986] FCA 447

Noordhof, J.J. v. Bartlett, M.J. [1986] FCA 447

The absence of proof and production in evidence of the original warrants of apprehension, and failure to comply with the statutory requirements for production of the warrant to the person apprehended, meant that the respondent was not shown to be acting in the execution of his lawful duty. This was a necessary...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: JOHN JACOB NOORDHOF; Respondent: MICHAEL JAMES BARTLETT
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 1986
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal to Federal Court From Supreme Court of the ACT
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and costs order set aside; respondent to pay costs.
Legal Topics
Assault on Police, Execution of Warrants, Proof of Lawful Authority, Service and Execution of Process Act, Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Assault on Police Execution of Warrants Proof of Lawful Authority Service and Execution of Process Act Criminal Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JOHN JACOB NOORDHOF

Appellant

MICHAEL JAMES BARTLETT

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal to Federal Court From Supreme Court of the ACT

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent proved that, at the time of the assault, he was acting in the execution of his duty as a police officer under s 64(1) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient proof of the existence and execution of warrants of apprehension under the Service and Execution of Process Act 1901
  3. 3 Whether failure to produce and prove the original warrants was fatal to the prosecution of the offence

Ratio Decidendi

The absence of proof and production in evidence of the original warrants of apprehension, and failure to comply with the statutory requirements for production of the warrant to the person apprehended, meant that the respondent was not shown to be acting in the execution of his lawful duty. This was a necessary element of the offence; absent proof of this element, the conviction could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and costs order set aside; respondent to pay costs.

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed with costs.
  • The order of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory be set aside.