REGINA v O'NEILL [2001] NSWCCA 193

REGINA v O'NEILL [2001] NSWCCA 193

The officers' pre-entry statements only identified themselves as police and said they needed to speak with the respondent, which was a request he was entitled to refuse. They did not state an intention to arrest or another lawful basis for entry without consent, and the circumstances did not implicitly communicate such an intent. The attempted apprehension was therefore not lawful for the purposes of s33B, and the District Court ruling was upheld.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Under S5 F(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Against an Interlocutory Judgment or Order in a Criminal Trial / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Ruling That the Respondent Was Entitled to a Directed Acquittal on the First Count
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['lawful Arrest' 'forcible Entry Into a Private Dwelling' 'proper Announcement Before Entry' 'use of Offensive Instrument to Prevent Lawful Apprehension' 'crown Interlocutory Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'police Powers'] ['lawful Arrest' 'forcible Entry Into a Private Dwelling' 'proper Announcement Before Entry' 'use of Offensive Instrument to Prevent Lawful Apprehension' 'crown Interlocutory Appeal']

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

Crown Appeal Under S5 F(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Against an Interlocutory Judgment or Order in a Criminal Trial / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Ruling That the Respondent Was Entitled to a Directed Acquittal on the First Count

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court ruling could be treated as an interlocutory judgment or order for the purposes of s5F(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.' "Whether the police officers' forcible entry into the respondent's home was preceded by the common law formalities required for the attempted arrest to be lawful within the meaning of s33B of the Crimes Act 1900." "Whether the officers' words and surrounding circumstances amounted to a proper announcement of a lawful reason for entry without permission."]

Ratio Decidendi

The officers' pre-entry statements only identified themselves as police and said they needed to speak with the respondent, which was a request he was entitled to refuse. They did not state an intention to arrest or another lawful basis for entry without consent, and the circumstances did not implicitly communicate such an intent. The attempted apprehension was therefore not lawful for the purposes of s33B, and the District Court ruling was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']