› Whether trial judge misdirected jury on execution of duty
› Whether summing-up apt to confuse
› Whether appellant denied procedural fairness
› Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), ss 254, 271
Criminal Law
› Assault
› Assault on police officer
› Acting in execution of duty
› Lawfulness of arrest
› Use of excessive force in effecting arrest or executing process
› Whether use of handcuffs constituted excessive force
› Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 365
› Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 80
Criminal Law
› Directions to jury
› Duty of trial judge to identify real issues
› Duty to explain how law applies to facts
› Pemble direction
› Whether issue of excessive force fairly raised on the evidence
Quick Take
1Where the question of whether a police officer used excessive force in handcuffing a person is fairly raised on the evidence, the trial judge must direct the jury that if the handcuffing involved excessive force, the officer was not acting in the execution of duty, and must link that direction to the relevant evidence.
2The degree of force lawfully available to a police officer executing process or effecting an arrest is not a matter for the officer's discretionary determination; it is limited to such force as is reasonably necessary to overcome force used in resistance (s 254 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)).
3A summing-up must identify the real issues in the case, the facts relevant to those issues, and explain how the law applies to those facts (applying Fingleton v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 166); failure to do so, particularly where the directions are contradictory or confusing, denies procedural fairness.
Case Details
Citation[2010] QCA 28
CourtQCA
JurisdictionQueensland
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
