REGINA v MANTON [2002] NSWCCA 316

REGINA v MANTON [2002] NSWCCA 316

The appellant's proposed additional requirement that intimidation under s 60(1) must deflect, overbear or otherwise affect the officer's performance of duty was rejected because it would add words to the subsection and alter its natural meaning. Proof that the appellant's intentional conduct put the officer in fear while the officer was executing his duty was sufficient, and the prosecution evidence was capable of establishing a prima facie case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Case Stated / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination of Questions Stated After District Court Ruling That a Prima Facie Case Was Made Out
Outcome
Questions in the case stated answered in favour of the Crown; the District Court judge was entitled to find a case for the appellant to answer.
Legal Topics
['intimidation of a Police Officer' 'crimes Act 1900 S 60(1)' 'police Officer in Execution of Duty' 'prima Facie Case']
['criminal Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['intimidation of a Police Officer' 'crimes Act 1900 S 60(1)' 'police Officer in Execution of Duty' 'prima Facie Case']

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 Appeal by Case Stated / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination of Questions Stated After District Court Ruling That a Prima Facie Case Was Made Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the offence of intimidation of a police officer under s 60 of the Crimes Act 1900 is established by proof of no more than that the accused's acts or words caused the officer to experience fear or apprehension." 'Whether, on the prosecution evidence, the District Court judge was entitled to determine that there was a case for the appellant to answer.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's proposed additional requirement that intimidation under s 60(1) must deflect, overbear or otherwise affect the officer's performance of duty was rejected because it would add words to the subsection and alter its natural meaning. Proof that the appellant's intentional conduct put the officer in fear while the officer was executing his duty was sufficient, and the prosecution evidence was capable of establishing a prima facie case.

Court Disposition

Questions in the case stated answered in favour of the Crown; the District Court judge was entitled to find a case for the appellant to answer.

Orders

  • ['Question 1 answered: Yes.' 'Question 2 answered: Yes.']