For a conviction under s 160 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) for escape from lawful arrest, the prosecution must adduce positive evidence that the arresting officer actually held the suspicion required by s 212(1)(b), not merely that the officer could have held such suspicion. The fact that an officer could justifiably have held the requisite suspicion is no basis for inferring beyond reasonable doubt that the officer did so. An arrest requires both communication of the intention to arrest and either physical restraint or submission; without submission or physical contact, the arrest is not completed. Custody and arrest are distinct concepts under s 160, and the prosecution must prove the alternative charged.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.