Clark v Trenerry

(1996) 125 FLR 260; [1996] NTSC 2

Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Particular offences
3. › Assault police
4. › Assault in execution of duty
5. › Whether arrest lawful
6. › Whether police had reasonable grounds for belief offence being committed
7. › Arrest based on mistaken belief as to precise words used
8. › Police Administration Act (NT), ss 123, 127
9. › Summary Offences Act (NT), s 53(7)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Arrest
3. › Obligation to inform person arrested of reason for arrest
4. › Whether person ought to have known substance of offence from circumstances of arrest
5. › Police Administration Act (NT), s 127(3)(a)
6. › Christie v Leachinsky [1947] UKHL 2 considered
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict
5. › Failure of magistrate to consider exculpatory evidence
6. › Standard of review on appeal
7. › M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 applied
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Sentence
4. › Assault police in execution of duty
5. › Sentencing considerations
6. › General and personal deterrence
7. › Prior convictions for similar offending
8. › Whether sentence manifestly excessive

Quick Take

An arrest is not rendered unlawful merely because the police were mistaken about the precise words used by the person arrested, provided they had reasonable grounds to believe an offence was being committed. Under s 127(3)(a) of the Police Administration Act (NT), the obligation to inform a person of the offence for which they are arrested does not apply where the circumstances are such that the person ought to have known the substance of the offence; this is an objective test assessed by reference to the circumstances of the arrest. Assaulting police in the execution of their duty invites a gaol sentence, particularly where the offender has prior convictions for similar offending.