McLachlan v Mesics [1966] HCA 50

McLachlan v Mesics [1966] HCA 50

On the facts found, the respondent's acquittals could not be supported. The absence of a charge arising from the axe incident did not justify the inference that the appellant lacked an intention to charge the respondent or take him before a Justice when he arrested him. The contrary inference arose from the circumstances, so the magistrate erred in law in determining that the arrest was unlawful and that the appellant was not acting in the execution of his duty.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Cases Stated; Appeal by Special Leave / High Court Appeal From Decision of Richardson J. in the Supreme Court on Two Cases Stated by a Stipendiary Magistrate Under S. 101 of the Justices Act, 1902 1965
Outcome
Appeals allowed.
Legal Topics
['arrest Without Warrant' 'police Acting in Execution of Duty' 'assaulting Police' 'resisting Police' 'case Stated']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['arrest Without Warrant' 'police Acting in Execution of Duty' 'assaulting Police' 'resisting Police' 'case Stated']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Cases Stated; Appeal by Special Leave / High Court Appeal From Decision of Richardson J. in the Supreme Court on Two Cases Stated by a Stipendiary Magistrate Under S. 101 of the Justices Act, 1902 1965

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the magistrate erred in law in acquitting the respondent of unlawfully assaulting the appellant whilst in the execution of his duty and resisting the appellant in the execution of his duty.' "Whether the appellant's statement that the respondent was under arrest for assault was unlawful because no charge was later preferred in respect of the axe incident." 'Whether the appellant was acting in the execution of his duty when the conduct involving the beer bottle and broken water jug occurred.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts found, the respondent's acquittals could not be supported. The absence of a charge arising from the axe incident did not justify the inference that the appellant lacked an intention to charge the respondent or take him before a Justice when he arrested him. The contrary inference arose from the circumstances, so the magistrate erred in law in determining that the arrest was unlawful and that the appellant was not acting in the execution of his duty.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed.

Orders

  • ['In each case appeal allowed and order of Richardson J. set aside.' 'In lieu thereof order that the question asked be answered Yes and matter remitted to magistrate to be dealt with according to law.' 'Costs of case stated in Supreme Court to be paid by respondent.' 'No order as to the costs of the appeals to the...