Judge Finds No Case to Answer During Police Officer’s Evidence

Hugo Law Group represented two clients charged with assaulting police in the execution of their duty.

The allegation was that the assaults against police occurred at a licensed premises after our clients refused to leave.

The matter proceeded to a defended hearing in the Young Local Court.

The police called the Officer-in-Charge of the investigation as their primary witness at the hearing. Under cross-examination by Tom Taylor, the officer conceded that he had no lawful basis to exclude our clients from the licensed premises.

The officer had stated, both in his written statement and in court, that one of our clients had struck him in the face several times while standing. He was then shown CCTV footage from inside the premises, frame by frame, which clearly demonstrated that the alleged assault could not have occurred as described. It was apparent that our client had not struck the police officer at any stage. However, the officer refused to concede this obvious fact during cross-examination, claiming that the poor quality of the footage meant it was still possible.

Partway through the officer’s evidence, we made a submission that our clients had no case to answer in relation to the charges. We submitted that, as there was no lawful basis to exclude our clients from the licensed premises, the police officer had not been acting in the lawful execution of his duty, which was an essential element of the offence that the prosecution was required to prove.

The judge also agreed that the police officer’s evidence was entirely unsatisfactory and that there was no prospect of the police prosecutor being able to prove the charges. The judge accepted our submissions and found that there was no case to answer.

The charges were dismissed, and we made an application for costs against the police pursuant to s 213(1) of the *Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)* or, in the alternative, pursuant to s 2 of the *Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW)*, on the grounds that the prosecution could never have succeeded in this matter.