The Queen v RolfeCitation:[2021] HCA 38Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:10 Nov 2021Case Number:D2/2021Read more

The Queen v RolfeCitation:[2021] HCA 38Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:10 Nov 2021Case Number:D2/2021Read more

Section 148B of the Police Administration Act 1978 (NT) provides immunity from criminal liability only for acts done in good faith in the exercise of a power or performance of a function under the Act, and the scope of 'function' must be determined by reference to the Act. The Full Court erred in reformulating and answering a hypothetical question based on assumed facts likely to be disputed at trial.

Parties
Respondent: Respondent; Applicant: Northern Territory Police Force
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment After Referral of Questions of Law Before Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Police Powers and Immunities, Defences to Criminal Liability, Interpretation of Statutory Functions, Pre Trial Questions of Law

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Respondent

Respondent

Northern Territory Police Force

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment After Referral of Questions of Law Before Trial

  1. 1 Whether s 148B of the Police Administration Act 1978 (NT) provides immunity from criminal liability for acts done in good faith in the exercise of police functions
  2. 2 Whether 'function' under s 148B includes core functions listed in s 5(2) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the Full Court erred in reformulating and answering a hypothetical question of law based on assumed facts

Ratio Decidendi

Section 148B of the Police Administration Act 1978 (NT) provides immunity from criminal liability only for acts done in good faith in the exercise of a power or performance of a function under the Act, and the scope of 'function' must be determined by reference to the Act. The Full Court erred in reformulating and answering a hypothetical question based on assumed facts likely to be disputed at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The orders of the Full Court are set aside.
  • The referred questions are remitted for determination in accordance with this judgment.