Week 5-Assault of a Police Officer while in execution of his/her duty s60

Question 1

Summary of AR Elements of s60 Offences

Answer 1

s60(1) assault, throws a missile, stalks, harasses, intimidates, no abh - 5 years;
(1A) as for (1) plus during public disorder – 7 years
(2) assault occasioning abh – 7 years
(2A) as for (2) plus during public disorder – 9 years
(3) Wounds or causes gbh with reckless as to abh – 12 years
(3A) as for (3) plus during public disorder – 12 years

Question 2

s60 of Crimes Act (1900)

Answer 2

For the purposes of this section, an action is taken to be carried out in relation to a police officer while in the execution of the officer’s duty, even though the police officer is not on duty at the time, if it is carried out:

(a) as a consequence of, or in retaliation for, actions undertaken by that police officer in the execution of the officer’s duty, or
(b) because the officer is a police officer.

Question 3

MR Principle in Reynhoudt (1962) 107 CLR 381 Dixon CJ and Kitto J dissent; Menzies J (Taylor and Owen JJ agreeing)

Answer 3

Crown need not prove that the accused
actually knew that the person assaulted was a police officer acting in the execution of his duty at the time of the assault.

Menzies J (Taylor and Owen JJ agreeing); strict
liability – absence of honest and reasonable mistake
of fact

Dixon J: intent must go to all the ingredients of the
offence

Question 4

MR Principle in He Kaw Teh (1985) 157 CLR 523 Brennan J

Answer 4

Refers to judgments in Reynhoudt, and notes
Turnbull Jordan CJ

At common law prosecution must prove
that defendant knew all the facts constituting the ingredients
necessary to make the act criminal were involved in what he
was doing (intention rather than strict liability)

Question 5

Principle in Semaan v Poidevin [2013] NSWSC 226

Rothman J NSWSC; [2013] NSWCA 334 Leeming JA (Ward and Emmett JJA agreeing)

Answer 5

Bound to follow majority in Reynhoudt regarding MR –
ie strict liability

Magistrate failed to consider whether defendant was
labouring under an honest and reasonable mistake as to
whether the police officer was acting in the execution of
his duty
-
NSWCCA – did not address it what MR sould be,
because not raised in the Local Court, therefore not a
‘live issue

Question 6

s60 Intimidation Principle in Meller v Low [2000] NSWSC 75

Answer 6

‘intimidate’ means to render timid, to inspire with fear, to
overawe, to cow, or to force to or deter from some action by
threats or violence or by inducing fear.

‘intimidation consists both of a particular form of conduct
and the effect the conduct has on another person. There is no intimidation until another person has been intimidated’

There needs to be some evidence that the police officer was
in fact intimidated

Question 7

s60 Intimidation Principle in Manton [2002] NSWCCA 316

Answer 7

Only requires police officer to experience fear or
apprehension

NOT necessary to prove that such fear overbore them to such
an extent that they were influenced to or deterred from some
action in the course of their duty

Question 8

Co-incidence between actus reus and mens rea

Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [1969] 1 QB 439 James J

Answer 8

it was said that because the act was a
continuing one, when the MR was formed, the act was
already conducted on in a process of conducting, therefore, it
coincides.