19 Oct 2010
The convictions were upheld because the magistrate was entitled to find on the evidence that after PW1 announced an arrest the appellant exerted force and pushed the officers, which constituted an assault, and the officers were acting in the due execution of their duty, rendering the convictions safe and not open to disturbance on appeal.
5 May 2005
Appellants' arrests were unlawful because the arresting officers did not possess reasonable grounds to suspect the demonstrators had committed an unreasonable public place obstruction once the demonstrators' constitutional right to demonstrate was given proper weight; consequently the officers were not acting in the due execution of their duty when removing the appellants at the police station and the convictions for wilful obstruction of police and for assault (charges 3–6) must be quashed; PFO s50 must be read to require reasonable suspicion to prevent arbitrary arrest.
22 Dec 2004
The Court certified two questions of law of great and general importance and granted leave to appeal: (1) whether police officers are to be regarded as acting in the due execution of their duty when processing persons arrested on the order of a superior officer who had no reasonable ground for the arrest; and (2) whether delay between appellate hearing and judgment can constitute denial of justice warranting quashing of convictions; leave was granted also on the substantial and grave injustice basis to allow consideration of related issues including possible substitution of convictions.
28 Feb 1991
The convictions were upheld because there was insufficient evidence to establish any unlawful restraint or interference with the appellant's liberty and the constables were properly exercising functions incidental to their statutory and common law duties; the appellant's own conduct caused the incident.