Andrews v Thomson

[2018] ACTCA 53

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Bail
3. › Arrest without warrant for breach of bail conditions
4. › Whether power to arrest includes power to enter premises without warrant
5. › Whether common law right of entry survived legislative relocation of provision
6. › Bail Act 1992 (ACT), s 56A
7. › Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 215, 220, 349Z, 349ZE
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Relocated provisions
3. › Whether meaning of provision changes upon relocation
4. › Presumption that re-enacted provision retains prior interpretation
5. › Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), s 96
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Extrinsic materials
3. › Whether resort to explanatory memorandum and second reading speech permissible
4. › Provision not ambiguous
5. › Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), ss 141, 142
1. Human Rights
2. › Interpretation of laws consistently with human rights
3. › Whether interpretive obligation under human rights legislation alters meaning of provision with established interpretation
4. › Whether reasonable limits provision affects interpretive process
5. › Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), ss 28, 30

Quick Take

Section 56A of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) authorises police to enter premises without warrant to arrest a person believed to have breached bail conditions, carrying with it the common law right of entry that attached to its predecessor provision. The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), ss 28 and 30, does not alter this interpretation where the provision has an established meaning predating the HRA. Prior ACT authority on the interpretive role of the HRA (R v Fearnside, Islam) is superseded by Momcilovic v The Queen.