When considering a police officer’s assessment that a breach of the peace is imminent, the question of immediacy is in part a question of degree and is highly relevant to the reasonableness of the action taken.
A refusal or failure to co-operate with a police officer’s direction whilst that officer is carrying out his reasonable duty or reasonably exercising a power can amount to obstruction.
The appellants had been convicted of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. The Bill of Rights Act 1990 in New Zealand came into force four months after the convictions of the appellants. On the appeal by the defendants Robertson J described the argument advanced by counsel on their behalf as follows:
‘He argued that s 16 (which guarantees freedom of peaceful assembly) altered the test for determining the lawfulness of police instructions by now requiring the police to do anything else which is reasonably possible to prevent a breach of the peace before interfering with a protester’s s 16 right. Further, he submitted that the Court should give the Bill of Rights Act retrospective effect, and decide that even if the police instruction was reasonable, and therefore lawful at the time it was given, s 16 retroactively made it unlawful. Counsel’s thesis was that the police must prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no other reasonable way of averting a breach of the peace before the request could be upheld as lawful. He argued that the ‘beneficial’ effect of such a retrospective interpretation should overwhelm the presumption against the retrospective effect of statutes.’
Robertson J rejected this argument: ‘Certainly, it would be beneficial from his clients’ point of view to have their misdemeanour undone in this fashion. But I do not accept that it would be ‘beneficial’ for the law or society at large if a Court were to declare invalid that which was valid at the time it was done.’
Judges:
Cooke J
Citations:
[1987] 1 NZLR 374, (1991) 7 CRNZ 38
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Albert v Lavin HL 3-Dec-1981
An off duty and out of uniform police officer attempted to restrain the defendant jumping ahead of a bus queue. The defendant struggled, and continued to do so even after being told that of the officer’s status. He said he had not believed that he . .
Cited by:
Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
Cited – Regina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Commonwealth
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.247475
