Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QDC
  3. 2022
  4. Mohammed v Commissioner of Police - [2022] QDC 265

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Mohammed v Commissioner of Police[2022] QDC 265

Mohammed v Commissioner of Police[2022] QDC 265

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mohammed v Commissioner of Police [2022] QDC 265

PARTIES:

JAMAL MOHAMMED

(Appellant)

v

COMISSIONER OF POLICE

(Respondent)

FILE NO:

1873/21

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 19 July 2021

DELIVERED ON:

30 November 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 February 2022

JUDGE:

Dann DCJ

ORDER:

  1. The appeal is allowed.
  2. The conviction is quashed.
  3. The appellant is found not guilty.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEALS – s 222 Justices Act 1886 – appeal against conviction – where the appellant was convicted after trial on one count of serious assault of a police officer – where the appellant at trial did not dispute the act of the assault – where the appellant’s arm was in a cast and it was accepted the officers knew this – where the Officer moved the appellants arm at which point he spat on the officer – where the appellant argues the arrest was unlawful or the movement of the arm was an unreasonable use of force – where in the alternative the appellant argues self-defence or provocation arise as defences to the act of the spit – whether the conviction is unreasonable in all the circumstances

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s 340(1)(b) and (a)(i)

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) s 52, s 365, s 615

Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 222

CASES:

Allesch v Maunz (2003) 207 CLR 172 

Coleman v Kinbacher (Qld Police) [2003] QCA 575

Commissioner of Police v Flanagan [2018] QCA 109

R v Hardy [2010] QCA 28

R v Reuben [2001] QCA 322

Sanchez and Anor v Commissioner of Police [2022] QCA 212

Sanchez and Anor v Commissioner of Police [2021] QDC 76

Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] 2 Qd R 489

White v Commissioner of Police [2014] QCA 121

Whitelaw v O'Sullivan [2010] QCA 366

COUNSEL:

J. Lodziak for the appellant

T. O'Brien, Senior Legal Officer for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant

Office of the Department of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

What are the issues on the appeal?

  1. [1]
    Mr Mohammed appeals against the Magistrate’s decision to convict him, after a trial, of one count of serious assault of a police officer pursuant to section 340(1)(b) and (a)(i) of the Criminal Code (Qld).
  2. [2]
    Mr Mohammed and some others were out in Fortitude Valley late one Saturday night in July 2019.  Mr Mohammed veered towards the oncoming police who were walking on the footpath, raising his middle finger and saying (or singing) “Fuck the police”.  One of the police officers turned and arrested Mr Mohammed and the other two officers assisted.  They walked him back to the police beat, with one officer holding each of Mr Mohammed’s arms because he was wearing a cast on his right arm. The police officers knew about this at or very shortly after the arrest. When they got inside the police beat, they put Mr Mohammed up against a padded wall. In the course of constraining him to conduct a search of his person, when Mr Mohammed did not put his arm in the cast out on the wall, the complainant police officer lifted Mr Mohammed’s elbow up and Mr Mohammed cried out. Thereafter, he spat in the officer’s face, giving rise to the serious assault charge.
  3. [3]
    Mr Mohammed admits spitting on Sergeant Watkins: the challenge arises from the circumstances in which he came to do so.  His primary ground of appeal is that the conviction is not supported by the evidence led at the trial and he asks the Court to come to its own conclusion on the evidence before the Magistrate.[1]

What legal principles apply to the appeal?

  1. [4]
    An appeal under s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (‘Justices Act’) is by way of re-hearing.  For such an appeal, it is necessary to show some legal, factual or discretionary error.[2] 
  2. [5]
    The Court is required to conduct a real review of the trial (which includes the task of weighing conflicting evidence and drawing its own inferences and conclusions), weighing the Magistrate’s reasons and make its own determination of relevant facts in issue from the evidence, giving due deference and attaching a good deal of weight to the Magistrate’s views.[3]  No relevant credit issues arise on the evidence in the trial below.
  3. [6]
    The Court can confirm, set aside or vary an order made or make any other order that the Court considers just.[4]

Why does Mr Mohammed argue he should not have been convicted?

  1. [7]
    The offence comprises the following elements:
    1. (a)
      Mr Mohammed assaulted;
    2. (b)
      a police officer;
    3. (c)
      while the police officer was acting in the execution of the officer’s duty; and
    4. (d)
      the assault comprised Mr Mohammed spitting on the police officer.
  2. [8]
    Mr Mohammed submits that his conviction is unreasonable and not supported having regard to the evidence because:
    1. (a)
      Sergeant Watkins was not acting in the execution of his duty at the time of the spitting, so the offence is not made out.[5] Mr Mohammed relies on the principle in R v Hardy,[6]  arguing that Sergeant Watkins’ use of force in lifting up his injured arm, which immediately preceded the spitting and that precipitated the spitting was excessive;[7]
    2. (b)
      the defences of self defence and provocation could not be excluded beyond a reasonable doubt;[8] and 
    3. (c)
      the arrest was unlawful.[9]
  3. [9]
    It is necessary to consider the events in the order in which they occurred on the night in question, as these are the objectively relevant circumstances through which the conduct of all parties is to be assessed at the precise time of the spitting.

How did Mr Mohammed come to interact with the police?

  1. [10]
    Senior Constable Padhila’s body worn camera footage of a street patrol he was performing with Constable Schembri (the arresting officer) and Sergeant Watkins was tendered at the trial as Exhibit 2.
  2. [11]
    It captures the events from prior to Mr Mohammed’s arrest up to and including when Mr Mohammed spat on Sergeant Watkins and a little time thereafter. It lasts 4 minutes and 17 seconds. I have watched it a number of times. I summarise the following from the footage and the officers’ evidence at trial.  
  3. [12]
    It is a busy Saturday night. There are plenty of people on the street. An ambulance goes past with its lights flashing. A taxi is pulled up waiting on the street and there are unidentified men in high vis vests on the footpath, in addition to citizens who appear to be having a night out.
  4. [13]
    About 20 seconds in, the incident occurs which causes Constable Schrembri to turn 180 degrees, follow Mr Mohammed and engage with him. There is no audio on Exhibit 2 at this point. Mr Mohammed can be seen wearing a dark coloured hoodie and veering towards the police whilst he is walking in the opposite direction to them. He appears to be moving freely.    Officer Schembri’s evidence was Mr Mohammed was in the officer’s personal space, closer than a metre,[10]  Mr Mohammed’s demeanour appeared to be quite aggressive,[11] he was walking from side to side and the officer could smell alcohol.[12] Senior Constable Padilha assisted, grabbing Mr Mohammed by the head to calm him down because he was struggling and resisting arrest.[13] Sergeant Watkins said that when he was assisting in Mr Mohammed’s arrest he did not try to pull Mr Mohammed’s right arm behind his back because his friends said Mr Mohammed had a cast on his arm.[14] 
  5. [14]
    The audio commences 30 seconds into the footage. There are loud but indistinguishable noises on the audio, as well as one person saying words to the effect “put your hands behind your back” and another saying “put your hands behind your back mate”. These statements are made several times, along with statements to the effect of “just relax” and “my hand’s broken”. During this time, it is possible to see in the footage something black between the thumb and fingers on one of Mr Mohammed’s hands. The officers were aware of a cast on Mr Mohammed’s arm from this time.[15] 
  6. [15]
    Mr Mohammed says “my arm” a couple of times and someone else says something about an arm or a hand being broken, and an arm in a cast. One officer says words to the effect “we know mate” and one says “just relax”.
  7. [16]
    Mr Mohammed says “don’t do that my arm’s broken”, someone else says something about a hand being broken and one of the officers says what I believe to be “we’re walking you back to the mall”. This is at about 50 seconds into the recording.
  8. [17]
    Other young men in the group repeat that Mr Mohammed’s hand is broken. One officer says words to the effect that Mr Mohammed can’t act the way he did and one officer says words to the effect they realise that with the cast and they are going to walk him back to the police beat.
  9. [18]
    Someone says “just relax buddy”.
  10. [19]
    One of the officers says to the other young men words to the effect “Just because you are drunk doesn’t mean you can come up and swear at police and act like a tool”. This is at approximately 1 minute and 13 seconds.
  11. [20]
    The police then cross the road with Mr Mohammed. One officer is on either side of Mr Mohammed. Each officer is holding one of Mr Mohammed’s arms. Exactly how they are doing so is unclear, because the officer with the body worn camera is behind the group of 3. Mr Mohammed’s arms are not visible in the footage at this point. The police officers are walking purposefully. At this stage Mr Mohammed is not apparently dragging his feet or staggering. Officer Schembri is holding Mr Mohammed’s left arm and Sergeant Watkins is holding Mr Mohammed’s right arm.[16]  He had Mr Mohammed by the elbow and around the bicep area when he was walking Mr Mohammed back to the police beat.[17]  He did not ask Mr Mohammed where or how his arm was broken or whether it was painful to touch.[18]  He noticed the cast when they were back at the police beat.[19]
  12. [21]
    At around 1 minute and 23 seconds (and after), whilst police are walking Mr Mohammed back to the police beat, shouting and calling out can be heard. It does not appear to be related to the events involving Mr Mohammed and the police. The shouting and calling out is what was occurring with other persons in the Valley’s general atmosphere late on that particular Saturday night. There is a lot happening in the general environs.
  13. [22]
    At about 1minute 34 seconds, an officer can be heard saying “how did he break his arm” and someone replies “Ah I don’t know. His story to tell, I don’t know”. The officer replies “It wasn’t fighting with police was it ?” and the other person replies “Nah”. The tone of this exchange is conversational. Senior Constable Padilha said in evidence he was talking to Mr Mohammed’s friends on the way back to the police beat and I infer this exchange involves him.
  14. [23]
    At about 2 minutes into the video, Mr Mohammed becomes less purposeful in his movements. This is just prior to walking through some bollards on the footpath. A young man in a red shirt, who has been seen earlier in the footage, can be seen trying to touch Mr Mohammed’s back and Senior Constable Padilha says words to the effect to stay back for a second. That man, or another man, says he’d like to talk to him and the officer replies to the effect “that boat’s already sailed mate; him being an idiot is not going to get him anywhere”.
  15. [24]
    Mr Mohammed appears from this point in the footage to become resistant, he is staggering somewhat, his legs are less controlled and the police continue to move him towards the police beat. Exhibit 2 thereby provides some support for Senior Constable Padilha’s evidence that Mr Mohammed was resisting arrest by pushing back on his feet the whole way back.[20]
  16. [25]
    At 2 minutes and 15 seconds the police and Mr Mohammed enter the doorway into the police beat. I observe the police have to manoeuvre to get Mr Mohammed through the doorway as his body appears quite resistant at this point. Mr Mohammed says words to the effect “my arm’s broken” as he is being walked towards the padded wall.
  17. [26]
    By 2 minutes and 21 seconds Mr Mohammed is up against the padded wall in the police beat. There are three police officers present. Officer Schembri was on Mr Mohammed’s left side and put his left arm on the wall[21] (although the left arm is not visible in exhibit 2). Sergeant Watkins, the complainant, was at Mr Mohammed’s back and to his right side (the oral evidence was that he was on Mr Mohammed’s right side).[22] Officer Carmona-Diaz, who was in the police beat when Mr Mohammed was brought in[23] came over and joined on the right side, to the right of Sergeant Watkins. Nobody is constraining Mr Mohamed’s legs at this point.  Mr Mohammed says clearly to the police “My arm’s broken please brother”. Mr Mohammed is wearing long sleeves so whatever is on his arm under the long sleeves cannot be seen.
  18. [27]
    An officer says immediately thereafter at 2 minutes and 24 seconds words to the effect “put your arm out” and something indistinguishable which included reference to the arm and there are other indistinguishable words and noises on the footage. Mr Mohammed again says his arm is broken.
  19. [28]
    Senior Constable Padilha can be heard saying words to the effect “it’s got to be helped up” and “it is broken” at 2 minutes and 28 seconds on the footage.[24]  Officer Carmona-Diaz can be seen nodding as if in affirmation that he has heard what was said.  Mr Mohammed again says his arm is broken and he also says please boys. Mr Mohammed’s right arm is visible. It is bent at the elbow, with his hand not visible in front of his body.
  20. [29]
    Sergeant Watkins places his hand under Mr Mohammed’s elbow and pushes it up at 2 minutes and 30 seconds. Exhibit 2 also shows him then holding Mr Mohammed’s elbow up where he has pushed it up. His evidence was they asked Mr Mohammed to move his hands out and he didn’t. Sergeant Watkins then tried to grab his elbow, knowing he had a cast on. He tried to push Mr Mohammed’s arm out from between himself and the wall and as he was trying to do that Mr Mohammed spat in his face.[25]  He was on Mr Mohammed’s right side, trying to get his arm out, which Mr Mohammed had tucked in.  When Mr Mohammed didn’t move his arm after he was asked to, Sergeant Watkins grabbed Mr Mohammed’s elbow to try and move his arm out away from his waist.[26]
  21. [30]
    Exhibit 2 shows that after this Mr Mohammed cries out a couple of times and then at 2 minutes and 34 seconds spits on Sergeant Watkins in the face.  Sergeant Watkins’ evidence was that the spit landed on his face, on his glasses, his nose and his mouth.[27]  The spit is visible on Exhibit 2, and it seems deliberately directed at Sergeant Watkins who is holding Mr Mohammed’s arm. 
  22. [31]
    After Mr Mohammed spits, he continues to cry out, whilst the officers restrain him, much more aggressively, telling him not to spit. At 2 minutes and 40 odd seconds he can be heard yelling “Fuck you” several times, whilst the officers continue to restrain him and tell him not to spit.
  23. [32]
    The footage shifts to show Mr Mohammed’s friends, who have followed him into the foyer of the police beat, being asked by to leave the police beat, which they do by 3 minutes and 7 seconds.  Someone, I infer Mr Mohammed, can be heard screaming in the background.
  24. [33]
    The footage then returns to focus on Mr Mohammed who can be seen restrained against the wall by four officers. One of his legs is being held in the air. Mr Mohammed is saying words to the effect that his arm is hurting. Officer Carmona-Diaz swore that after the spit a struggle ensued as Mr Mohammed turned towards them and he went in and did a close hand tactic strike to Mr Mohammed’s midsection.[28] This was a closed hand strike towards Mr Mohammed’s mid section as he put a leg out to kick him.[29] Mr Mohammed threw a kick out towards him and he grabbed Mr Mohammed’s leg and restrained it.[30]  At about 3 minutes and 14 seconds Mr Mohammed says “my fucking arm’s hurting”.
  25. [34]
    An officer tells him he has to face the wall and face the ground because he’s been spitting.   At about 3 minutes 24 or 25 seconds Mr Mohammed says something to the effect “Boys I’ve got metal in my arm, it’s hurting please”. He’s told he has to relax his right arm. He can be heard saying he has nothing on him at approximately 3 minutes and 41 seconds. An officer responds saying Mr Mohammed was the one acting silly, coming up to the police and swearing at them at first.
  26. [35]
    At or about 4 minutes Mr Mohammed is saying loudly “please, my arm”.
  27. [36]
    At 4 minutes and 1 second he is taken off the wall by the police and told to walk. I observe from the footage that he seems to be resisting walking, he is dragging his feet and not putting them flat on the ground. At this stage three officers can be seen physically engaged in some way with Mr Mohammed, another officer appears to be in front of the group and another officer behind the group. The next thing that can be seen is various officers coming back in front of the camera. Officer Carmona-Diaz’s evidence was that the other officers put Mr Mohammed in a cell when he went back to the front counter.[31] From that I infer that the officers placed Mr Mohammed in a separate room or cell and left him there.
  28. [37]
    Speaking of Mr Mohammed’s demeanour in the cells, Officer Schembri observed Mr Mohammed had been quite intoxicated.[32]
  29. [38]
    Constable Schembri’s evidence was that Mr Mohammed was placed under arrest:
    1. (a)
      for the offence of public nuisance;[33]
    2. (b)
      to ascertain his identify;[34]
    3. (c)
      as he considered the behaviour to be quite aggressive;[35] 
    4. (d)
      as dealing with people on the footpath in the circumstances could be volatile because it introduces other aspects;[36] and
    5. (e)
      as it was safer for everyone to go back to the police beat where paperwork can be issued and where they could find out who he is.[37]
  30. [39]
    Sergeant Watkins’ evidence was consistent with the need to remove Mr Mohammed by taking him back to the police beat where the officers had more control[38] to establish his identify and take the next necessary steps to deal with the offending.[39] Senior Constable Padilha’s evidence was that Mr Mohammed’s behaviour in giving the finger and saying “Fuck the police” was volatile.[40]
  31. [40]
    As to the rationale for the search of Mr Mohammed at the police beat:
    1. (a)
      Senior Constable Padilha swore that people take knives and needles to the police beat so the police have to search them when they are in the police custody, and they have to have their arms out otherwise they can reach their jackets, their pockets, they can get things out and hurt the police, which is why Mr Mohammed was asked to put his arms on the wall.[41] Mr Mohammed was refusing and just locking his arms in front of him so they needed to use some force.[42] Mr Mohammed was completely disorderly and resisting all the way back to the police beat and a very volatile person, so the kind of person the police fear the most because they do unpredictable things.[43]   The police treated Mr Mohammed exactly how they would have treated any other person;[44]
    2. (b)
      Officer Schembri’s evidence was that it was a safety issue if someone had their arm hidden or where it could not be seen. It needs to be searched if a person is in police custody.[45]  The person’s arms need to go on the wall because you don’t know what they are and it is a considerable officer safety issue if a person can move their arm around. The arm needs to be controlled. You can take into consideration that it is broken and care can be used for that.[46] He couldn’t speak on how those officers moved his arm.[47]  The first time he found out about the force was the day he was giving evidence.[48] Mr Mohammed had not made any threats of violence towards him and Mr Mohammed didn’t say anything to make Officer Schembri suspect he had weapons on him;[49] and
    3. (c)
      Sergeant Watkins said Mr Mohammed was resisting the police pulling his arm out[50]  and he was concerned from the position of Mr Mohammed’s hand whether Mr Mohammed had a weapon in his waist or his jacket.[51] Sergeant Watkins said he was looking at his safety.[52]
  32. [41]
    Tendered at the trial as Exhibit 3, over the objection of the defence, were further video footage files taken from Officer Schembri’s body worn camera some time after the incident.
  33. [42]
    Mr Mohammed did not give or call evidence at the trial.

Did the Magistrate err in admitting the body worn camera footage of Officer Schembri which became Exhibit 3 at the trial?

  1. [43]
    I deal with this challenge first as it goes to what constitutes the record before me.
  2. [44]
    Mr Mohammed argues that video files which depict events that occurred after the alleged offence should not have been admitted or relied on by the Magistrate because: [53]
    1. (a)
      the footage was not relevant as it captured events after the alleged offence;
    2. (b)
      Counsel for Mr Mohammed was repeatedly interrupted by the learned Magistrate when making submissions as to relevance;
    3. (c)
      the Magistrate made her ruling without hearing fulsome submissions as to relevance;
    4. (d)
      findings made by the Magistrate were unsupported by the evidence which is contained in exhibit 3. Whilst the Magistrate relied on exhibit 3 as showing events ‘shortly after the spitting incident’ the video files are not time stamped, and no witness gave any timing relevant to the spitting; and
    5. (e)
      the number of files played and the order in which the files were played at the trial is unknown, as is the amount of time which passed between each of the recordings.
  3. [45]
    The Crown concedes the footage is not time stamped. It submits there was no error because:[54] 
    1. (a)
      the relevance of the footage was that it depicted the service of the banning notice and Mr Mohammed’s demeanour in the cell as being quite intoxicated;
    2. (b)
      the spitting offence occurred at approximately 12.20am on 14 July 2019 and Officer Schembri’s evidence was that the footage depicted events at approximately 12.15 -  12.30am on 14 July 2019;
    3. (c)
      whilst Officer Schembri was not asked when the footage was taken, he broadly confirmed the sequence of events when questioned by the Magistrate;
    4. (d)
      the footage depicts Mr Mohammed’s demeanour following his arrest and the spitting offence and provides objective, contemporaneous evidence of Mr Mohammed’s general demeanour and attitude to the police, his intoxication and the injury to his arm and impact (or lack of it) on him following his arrest;
    5. (e)
      the footage is contemporaneous evidence of Mr Mohammed’s general demeanour within short proximity of the serious assault offence and is admissible to establish Mr Mohammed’s demeanour and to assess if the police conduct was reasonably necessary; and
    6. (f)
      Mr Mohammed does not articulate prejudice he has suffered through the admission of the evidence;  rather, in submissions, Mr Mohammed concedes the footage depicts, at least in part, complaints Mr Mohammed made about his arm injury.
  4. [46]
    With due respect to the Magistrate, it appears from the transcript that Mr Mohammed’s representative was interrupted in her submissions on three occasions with the Magistrate then deciding to allow the video clips to be played and indicating she would make a ruling on it then[55]. It having been played, Mr Mohammed’s counsel again submits that the post offence conduct is not relevant and the Magistrate rules it is ‘for the purpose of completing the arrest’ and ‘probably the most objective evidence to the court in terms of peoples behaviour in the watch house  on the relevant evening’.[56]  
  5. [47]
    That latter observation is troubling when the conduct which actually comprised the lead up to the offence and the offence was in evidence already in exhibit 2. Whilst the Magistrate has had reference to exhibit 2 in the decision, the Magistrate’s reasons make a comparative assessment of Mr Mohammed’s behaviour as shown in each of exhibits 2 and 3, to focus on Mr Mohammed’s behaviour and the defence’s alleged failure to call evidence to establish what was wrong with Mr Mohammed’s arm.  
  6. [48]
    The evidence as to the timing of what is depicted in exhibit 3 is imprecise:
    1. (a)
      Sergeant Watkins says Mr Mohammed would have spent a couple of hours in the cells, he didn’t have any dealings with Mr Mohammed, other officers took the action;[57] and
    2. (b)
      this is contrasted with Officer Schembri, who give the time span for the events which are depicted in the footage as being from 12.15 – 12.30am and says that it was within minutes of giving him the notice and calling the paramedics that Mr Mohammed was released.[58] The start of that timeframe clearly precedes the spitting conduct which gave rise to the charge.
  7. [49]
    Further, what was actually played to the Court is unclear from the transcript.
  8. [50]
    Exhibit 2 captures, objectively, the lead up to and the conduct giving rise to the alleged offence and its immediate aftermath. 
  9. [51]
    As Exhibit 3 apparently documents conduct some unknown time after the events giving rise to the alleged offence, it cannot go to what, objectively assessed, was reasonably necessary force in the circumstances known to the police officer at the time he used the force.   Mr Mohammed’s demeanour in the cells at an unknown time after the event cannot, objectively, be relevant to the reasonableness of how Sergeant Watkins addressed his failure to put his injured arm out on the wall.  Consequently, the court cannot be satisfied that the footage which was contained in Exhibit 3 is relevant to the issues at the trial. The Magistrate erred in admitting it into evidence in these circumstances.

Did the Magistrate err by determining Mr Mohammed’s arrest was lawful?

  1. [52]
    Whilst Mr Mohammed’s written submissions refer to “the offence”, (ie using inverted commas), they do not suggest that Mr Mohammed had not committed the offence of public nuisance in how he interacted with police on the footpath. 
  2. [53]
    Rather, Mr Mohammed argued that the police response to his actions that night was an overreaction, not justified by the circumstances, that an arrest was not reasonably necessary and that his arrest was unlawful. Mr Mohammed relies on the following evidence (which were matters the police officers accepted in cross examination):
    1. (a)
      no effort was made to talk to him before he was placed under arrest;
    2. (b)
      he was not asked to stop;
    3. (c)
      he was walking away, not running away, at the time he was arrested;
    4. (d)
      he was not acting aggressively or violently at the time he was arrested; and
    5. (e)
      Constable Schembri, was upset by Mr Mohammed’s conduct.
  3. [54]
    Section 365(1) Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld)(PPRA) makes it lawful for the police to arrest without warrant in certain circumstances. It provides relevantly: 

(1) It is lawful for a police officer, without warrant, to arrest an adult the police officer reasonably suspects has committed or is committing an offence if it is reasonably necessary for 1 or more of the following reasons—

(a) to prevent the continuation or repetition of an offence or the commission of another offence;

(b) to make inquiries to establish the person’s identity;

(c) …

(g) to preserve the safety or welfare of any person, including the person arrested;

…

  1. [55]
    The Crown submitted that Constable Schembri’s evidence enlivened sections 365(1)(a), (b) and (g) of the PPRA.[59]  Given Constable Schembri’s evidence set out at paragraph [38], which makes no reference to repetition or continuation of an offence,   I accept Mr Mohammed’s submission that there is no evidence to support a finding that the officer’s actions come within section 365(1)(a) of the PPRA.
  2. [56]
    This Court’s decision in Sanchez and Sanchez v Commissioner of Police[60] is an example of a factual scenario where the mere availability of another option did not make arrest without warrant unreasonable. Since this appeal was argued before me the Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal from that decision.[61] Relevantly the Court of Appeal observed that the rationale for the 12 reasons in section 365(1) of the PPRA is that a police officer may arrest without an arrest warrant where there is a situation of urgency or necessity (subsections (a) – (h) and (k) falling within the category) or where the arrest is reasonably necessary in circumstances where the offence has a civil disobedience character (subsections (i), (k) and (l) falling within this category).[62]
  3. [57]
    In relying on s 365(1)(b) and (g) of the PPRA the Crown is ultimately contending that the circumstances here involved a situation of urgency or necessity.
  4. [58]
    The Court of Appeal observed that different people will have different views about what is reasonably necessary in particular circumstances,[63] and that there may be alternatives open to the police.[64] What has to be considered are the circumstances confronting the police in the particular situation. 
  5. [59]
    In written submissions the Crown also noted that s 52 of the PPRA allows a police officer to take steps the police officer considered reasonably necessary to prevent the commission, continuation or repetition of an offence.[65] That is so, if the police officer reasonably suspects an offence has been committed, is being committed or is about to be committed.[66]
  6. [60]
    The exercise of the power conferred by s 52 of the PPRA is constrained by s 615 of the PPRA, which, relevantly, is in the following terms:

(1) It is lawful for a police officer exercising or attempting to exercise a power under this or any other Act against an individual, and anyone helping the police officer, to use reasonably necessary force to exercise the power.

Example—

A police officer may use reasonable force to prevent a person evading arrest.

(2) ….

(3) ....

  1. [61]
    This provision requires the use of force be limited to that which is, judged objectively,  reasonably necessary.[67] The operation of s 615 of the PPRA is not attracted according to the state of mind of the police officer but rather whether, on an objective view, it is reasonably necessary to use the force which is used in the purported exercise of the power. That question is answered by reference to the facts and circumstances which present themselves to the police officer.[68]
  2. [62]
    Thus, the Court turns to the circumstances here.
  3. [63]
    The event occurred shortly after midnight in the Valley Safe Night Precinct on a Saturday evening in pre COVID times.  As already observed:
    1. (a)
      the area was busy with many people on the streets and in the vicinity of the event;
    2. (b)
      there was some evidence that Mr Mohammed was under the influence of alcohol to some extent; and
    3. (c)
      Mr Mohammed deliberately veered into the path of the officers. In doing so he drew their attention, and, whether sung or spoken, he made a negative comment about the police and an offensive hand gesture.
  4. [64]
    Mr Mohammed was with several other young males[69] and there were three police officers. This is a significant group of people on a footpath in a busy area.
  5. [65]
    By his conduct, notwithstanding the matters set out at [53], Mr Mohammed instigated the interaction. The police, on the spot, had to make a quick determination of how to respond.  In its factual context, I find this is a case of necessity, Whether other options may have been open does not mean the action the police took was not reasonably necessary.  
  6. [66]
    In the particular circumstances outlined above it was not unreasonable for the arresting officer to decide that removing Mr Mohammed from the immediate public area would be the saftest option for all involved. It was also not unreasonable for an arrest to be affected to determine identity.
  7. [67]
    I am satisfied on the evidence before the Magistrate, particularly exhibit 2 and the officers’ evidence as set out above, that the arrest of Mr Mohammed was lawful on the grounds in either, or both, of s 365(1)(b) and (g) of the PPRA.
  8. [68]
    Whilst she may not have referred to section 365 of the PPRA in the relevant part of the decision,[70] the Magistrate did not err in finding that Mr Mohammed’s arrest was lawful.

Was the officer’s use of force just prior to the spitting reasonably necessary, such that the officer was acting in the execution of his duty? 

  1. [69]
    Mr Mohammed contends that the force Sergeant Watkins used just prior to the time the spit occurred, in moving his arm, was excessive and therefore Sergeant Watkins was not acting in the execution of his duty.[71]
  2. [70]
    In R v Hardy[72] at [29] Muir JA (with whom Fraser and Chesterman JJA agreed) observed:

“If an arrest is unlawful, … resistance to an arresting officer may not be an assault unless disproportionate force is used. Conversely, if an arrest is lawful, the arresting officer is entitled to use such force as is reasonably necessary to give effect to the arrest…”

And at [38]:

“The degree of force which could be used lawfully by the complainant was not a matter for [the officer’s] discretionary determination. A police officer executing process or effecting an arrest may only use such force as is reasonably necessary” … 

And further at [40]:

“… if the handcuffing of the appellant involved the use of excessive force, the complainant would not have been regarded as acting in the execution of his or her duty when exerting that force”.

  1. [71]
    What is reasonable does not depend on the state of mind of the complainant officer.[73] It is an objective test to be answered by reference to the facts and circumstances which then present themselves to the police officer, rather than the true facts and circumstances as they may emerge by the time of trial.[74]
  2. [72]
    The respondent submits the force was not excessive. The police denied using techniques to enforce pained compliance, were conscious of Mr Mohammed’s arm and elected against the use of handcuffs.[75] They submit Mr Mohammmed was aggressive to Constable Schembri, was likely adversely affected by alcohol and was non-compliant with police directions from the moment of his initial arrest. Specifically, in respect of the conduct immediately preceding the spit, the respondent submits Mr Mohammed refused to position his body in a way which enabled police to conduct a pat down search.[76]
  3. [73]
    The Magistrate made the following findings:
    1. (a)
      Mr Mohammed was asked when he went into the City Beat to put his hands up on the wall.  This is standard procedure when police bring an accused person into any form of police custody, that they be entitled to undertake an appropriate search.[77] Mr Mohammed complied with one of his hands, but he did not comply with the other, which appears to be the hand he had some sort of plaster on it;[78]
    2. (b)
      Sergeant Watkins said Mr Mohammed was asked to put his hand on the wall. He complied with one arm, he did not with the other and then the officer was clear, that he was crying, he tried to pull his arm out and then in a very short period of time Mr Mohammed was hysterical and screaming and then the incident occurred with the spitting;[79]
    3. (c)
      the CCTV[80] is probably the best objective evidence. Mr Mohammed was requested to put his hand up, he did not do it as he was required and then force was reasonably necessary and required. It shows the defendant pleading with the police and he was, the situation was entirely out of hand.[81] When asked by the police about his behaviour, the defendant never says “why are you taking me to the watch-house, am I under arrest ?” he never denies swearing in the CCTV footage. He never says “I was only singing”;[82] and
    4. (d)
      by reference to exhibit 3, shortly after the spitting incident, which shows the defendant in the cell, Mr Mohammed has no impediment and he is smiling and laughing, grinning like a Cheshire cat and has no trouble at all in holding his cast up, no trouble at all in taking his hand up to his face level. He has a small black item on his left wrist but that is all. Subsequent to this moment there is a total change in his behaviour, where he is constantly interrupting, making complaints of being assaulted whilst his hand is up and then says “Sorry”.[83]
  4. [74]
    The Magistrate then turned to whether excessive force was applied to Mr Mohammed in the Police City Beat, finding:[84]
    1. (a)
      defence did not call any witnesses or produce any medical evidence to confirm that the defendant had any medical conditions other than that he had a cast on his arm;
    2. (b)
      this would not allow me to form a view that there was excessive force. I do not accept that the arrest was not lawful;
    3. (c)
      I do not accept that there was excessive force. There is absolutely no evidence before the Court as to the state of the defendant’s arm or otherwise, other than he had a small black cast on his arm;
    4. (d)
      the conflict in the officers’ evidence is resolved by exhibits 2 and 3. The defendant had a rather mercurial change in his behaviour, from screaming and yelling while he was being arrested to, subsequently shortly thereafter, in exhibit 3, behaving normally, gesticulating, talking, not in agony, not in pain and refusing the ambulance officer; and
    5. (e)
      then switching characters to a completely different person, where he is then screaming and yelling saying “my arm, my arm” behaving in an erratic manner, does not led me to the view that the character of his complaints about the police is able to be verified by any independent medical evidence.
  5. [75]
    The police’s use of force, and whether it was what was reasonably necessary, is to be judged objectively, based on the circumstances in which the police found themselves.  The learned Magistrate did not refer in her reasons to this requirement. Instead, her focus was on the defence’s alleged failure to lead medical evidence about Mr Mohammed’s arm.[85]  The learned Magistrate erred in relying on this alleged failure as preventing her from forming a view that there was excessive force. The incident was captured on Exhibit 2 and there was limited factual dispute as to what actually occurred.  The inquiry which has to be made is whether, objectively judged in the circumstances Sergeant Watkins found himself in on this particular occasion this night, in the police beat, that he used reasonably necessary force only.
  6. [76]
    For the reasons below, whilst this is a finely balanced case, I am not satisfied that he did.
  7. [77]
    At the outset of these findings, it is important to observe that the police working in the Valley in the middle of a weekend night have a difficult - and frequently unenviable - role to perform. They have to balance the often competing interests of citizens freely enjoying themselves and exhibiting exuberant spirits against those who may present safety issues to themselves, the police or other citizens.  This case is one which required such a balance.
  8. [78]
    Any person spitting on any other person is revolting behaviour; Mr Mohammed’s counsel properly accepted that the spitting was a disgusting and offensive act.[86]  Spitting has a degrading aspect to it, and in at least some cases, it also has the aspect of contempt shown for the authority of the police.[87] Nothing which follows condones a citizen spitting on a police officer, even if, as in the particular circumstances of this case, I have held that it does not constitute a serious assault of the officer involved. 
  9. [79]
    I have found that it was lawful to arrest Mr Mohammed. Mr Mohammed, by dragging his heels and legs as he was being taken back to the police beat, has not assisted his own situation.
  10. [80]
    I accept that it was a necessary part of the officers’ duties in the sequence of the arrest to search Mr Mohammed when he arrived at the police beat. I accept the officers’ evidence as to why persons who come into the police beat are searched and as to their concerns for their safety.  I also accept that re-positioning or moving Mr Mohammed’s arms would ultimately be an integral part of ensuring officer safety during such a search, where Mr Mohammed had been asked to put his arms out, been given a proper opportunity to comply and had not done so.
  11. [81]
    The issue is whether, in this case, Mr Mohammed had been given a proper opportunity to comply and had not done so, thereby rendering the use of force a “use of reasonably necessary force” within the meaning of s 615 of the PPRA. In that regard I have consideration to:
    1. (a)
      the evidence that suggests Mr Mohammed was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the events. How inebriated he was is unclear, but his friends referred to him being drunk and a number of the officers referred to him smelling of alcohol or appearing intoxicated, as I have already set out in my review of the evidence above;
    2. (b)
      after being arrested in the street, the officers were aware of issues with Mr Mohammed’s arm. As such, they did not apply handcuffs. Rather, two of them, one holding each arm, walked him back to the police beat. Neither officer asked Mr Mohammed whether his arm was causing him any pain or difficulty, or what movements he could make with it at the time of arrest or during the walk back to the police beat;
    3. (c)
      that Mr Mohammed was complaining about his arm throughout the process leading up to the events. Officer Schembri’s evidence was that Mr Mohammed was pleading the entire way with Sergeant Watkins not to touch his arm.[88] That is consistent with Exhibit 2 so far as it is possible to hear conversations between the officers and Mr Mohammed;
    4. (d)
      Mr Mohammed appeared on Exhibit 2 to be resistant to the police before the group entered the police beat. He was dragging his feet and legs;
    5. (e)
      this resistance meant the officers had a basis to consider his behaviour to be resistant. Thus they had reason to believe that they needed to act cautiously for their own safety. However, he did not make any threats to the police during the two odd minutes that he was interacting with them prior to the events against the wall;  
    6. (f)
      whether Mr Mohammed’s arm or hand was in fact broken is not relevant. The circumstances that the police faced were that Mr Mohammed had a cast on his arm at and from the point of their first interaction with him, he was telling them his arm was broken and his friends were telling them his arm or hand was broken.  There was nothing about his friends’ behaviour captured on Exhibit 2 that was in anyway inappropriate or challenging which may have heightened police concerns;
    7. (g)
      Sergeant Watkins knew there were issues with Mr Mohammed’s arm before Mr Mohammed was up against the wall at the police beat. He did not ask Mr Mohammed whether he could put his arm out at this time. No other officer did so either;    
    8. (h)
      once in the police beat, Mr Mohammed clearly says to the police that his arm is broken. No one asks him in response what he can do with his arm   Less than 3 second later, he is told by an officer to put his arm out. It is apparent from Exhibit 2 that both Sergeant Watkins and Officer Carmona-Diaz were constraining Mr Mohammed to some extent at this point and wrestling with his arm. Senior Constable Padilha can be heard saying it’s broken and it needs to be helped up. No officer said to him that if he did not put his arm out, they would take steps to do so for him; 
    9. (i)
      Mr Mohammed was being held against the wall by two officers who were assisted by a third officer before the spitting occurred. Whilst his behaviour had been somewhat resistant, he was not making any verbal threats to the officers. Rather, he was repeating to the officers his concern about his arm. He was loud in doing so. The evidence was that he had put his other arm on the wall immediately and without any issue; 
    10. (j)
      the events occurred in a very short space of time. It was 9 seconds from when Mr Mohammed was first on the wall until Sergeant Watkins pushed Mr Mohammed’s elbow up;
    11. (k)
      Mr Mohammed’s immediate response to his arm being pushed up was to cry out loudly and in a tone which suggests pain. From this point the situation became one of greater struggle. Mr Mohammed was crying in apparent pain; and
    12. (l)
      Mr Mohammed’s spit occurred 4 seconds after his elbow was pushed up and whilst Sergeant Watkins was holding it up. It was a single incident of spitting, specifically directed at Sergeant Watkins, who was the person who had pushed his elbow up and was holding it up at the time of the spit. It occurred after the officer’s actions.
  12. [82]
    The approach the officers took here was not one which was informed by the particular circumstances they found themselves in, with a citizen of unknown levels of  inebriation, who had made no threats to them and who had a cast on his arm and was telling them repeatedly that his arm was broken. Mr Mohammed had been brought back to the police beat for very low level transgressing behaviour. Whilst Mr Mohammed was resisting being taken into the police beat, through dragging his feet and not walking properly, he was, at the same time, pleading with the police about his arm. None of the officers asked him, at any time, if he was in pain or if he could move his arm. 
  13. [83]
    Whilst he was on the wall he was pleading with the officers about his arm being broken, and whilst they told him he had to put his arm out none of them asked him if he could do that or needed assistance before Sergeant Watkins pushed his elbow up and held it up in the air. 
  14. [84]
    The officers had force of numbers. They gave Mr Mohammed no real opportunity to comply with the requirement to put his injured arm out on the wall before it was pushed up, despite . knowing he had a cast on his arm and he had been saying, repeatedly, his arm was broken. It all happened in a matter of a few seconds.
  15. [85]
    Consequently I am not satisfied that Sergeant Watkins’ action in pushing Mr Mohammed’s elbow up at the time that he did, and in holding it up, was, objectively, reasonably necessary force. As such, I find he was not acting in the exercise of his duty as a police officer at this time, when Mr Mohammed then spat at him.
  16. [86]
    The prosecution having failed to prove this element of the offence which Mr Mohammed was charged with beyond a reasonable doubt, Mr Mohammed should be acquitted of the offence.
  17. [87]
    In so finding, it is not necessary for me to consider the issues of self defence or provocation.

Orders

  1. [88]
    The appeal is allowed. The conviction is quashed. Mr Mohammed is found not guilty.
  2. [89]
    I will hear the parties as to whether any other orders are required. 

Footnotes

[1]Appeal Transcript 1-2 l 46 – 1-3 l 3.

[2]Allesch v Maunz (2000) 207 CLR 172 at 180-181 at [23]; Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] 2 Qd R 489 at 493 [4]; White v Commissioner of Police [2014] QCA 121 at [8].

[3]Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 127-8 [27]; Rowe v Kemper [2009] 1 Qd R 247, 253 at [3]; White v Commissioner of Police [2014] QCA 121, at [6]; Forrest v Commissioner of Police [2017] QCA 132.

[4]Section 225 Justices Act.

[5]Appeal Transcript 1-3 ll 8 – 10.

[6][2010] QCA 28.

[7]Appeal Transcript 1-3 ll 29 – 36, 1-4 l 3-6. 

[8]Appeal Transcript 1-3 ll 12 – 15.

[9]Appeal Transcript 1-3 l 46 – 1-4 l 1.

[10]Transcript 1-39 ll 15 – 19.

[11]Transcript 1-39 ll 30 – 31. 

[12]Transcript 1-39 ll 36 – 39.

[13]Transcript 1-29 ll 14 – 19.

[14]Transcript 1-17 ll 44 – 46.

[15]Watkins Transcript 1-17 ll 44 – 46; Padilha Transcript 1-30 ll 40-41; Schembri Transcript 1-39 ll 25 – 27, 1 – 49 ll 28, 35 – 36.

[16]Schembri: Transcript 1-39 ll 25 – 27.

[17]Transcript 1 – 18 ll 12 – 14.

[18]Transcript 1 – 18 ll 3 – 10. 

[19]Transcript 1 – 9 ll 3 – 4.

[20]Transcript 1 – 31 ll 43 – 44.

[21]Transcript 1 – 40 ll 33 – 34.

[22]Transcript 1 – 18 ll 39 – 43.

[23]Transcript 1 – 55 ll 6-9, 1-55 ll 11 – 14, 1-56 ll 34 – 35.

[24]Transcript 1 – 32 ll 27 – 36.

[25]Transcript 1 – 9 ll 1-6, 29 – 39.

[26]Transcript 1 – 18 ll 39 – 43.

[27]Transcript 1 – 10 ll 22 – 23.

[28]Transcript 1 – 55 ll 26 – 27.

[29]Transcript 1 – 58 ll 4 – 6.

[30]Transcript 1 – 55 ll 27 – 28.

[31]Transcript 1 – 55 ll 29 – 30.

[32]Transcript 1 – 41 ll 21 – 22.

[33]Transcript 1 – 39 l 23, 1 – 40 ll 45 – 46.

[34]Transcript 1 – 41 ll 9 – 10.

[35]Transcript 1 – 39 ll 30 – 31.

[36]Transcript 1 – 41 ll 6 – 9.

[37]Transcript 1 – 41 ll 6 – 9.

[38]Transcript 1 – 9 ll 24 – 26.

[39]Transcript 1 – 9 ll, 24 – 26.

[40]Transcript 1 – 30 ll 37 – 38.

[41]Transcript 1 – 32 ll 42 – 47.

[42]Transcript 1 – 33 ll 1 – 4.

[43]Transcript 1 – 33 ll 22 – 25.

[44]Transcript 1 – 35 ll 36 – 37.

[45]Transcript 1 – 51 ll 2 – 4.

[46]Transcript 1 – 51 ll 23 – 28.

[47]Transcript 1 – 51 ll 28 – 29.

[48]Transcript 1 – 53 ll 33.

[49]Transcript 1 – 50 ll 36 – 40.

[50]Transcript 1 – 9 ll 42 – 43.

[51]Transcript 1 – 9 ll 43 – 44.

[52]Transcript 1 – 19 ll 6 – 7.

[53]Appellant’s submissions at [40] – [45].

[54]Respondent’s submissions at section 7.3.

[55]Transcript 1 – 42 l 13 1-43 l 3

[56]Transcript 1 – 45 ll 1 – 11. 

[57]Transcript 1 – 11 ll 15 – 21.

[58]Transcript 1 – 46 ll 10 – 12.

[59]Respondent’s outline at 7.1.4.

[60][2021] QDC 76.

[61]Sanchez and Anor v Commissioner of Police [2022] QCA 212 (Sanchez).

[62]At [15], including the footnotes to that paragraph and [19]. The reference to (k) appears twice in the footnotes.

[63]Sanchez op cit at [32].

[64]Sanchez op cit at [35].

[65]Respondent’s outline at 7.1.5.

[66]Section 52(1) PPRA.

[67]Whitelaw v O'Sullivan [2010] QCA 336 at [26], [43]; Commissioner of Police v Flanagan [2018] QCA 109 at [69].

[68]Commissioner of Police v Flanagan [2018] QCA 109 at [73] and [77] per McMurdo JA, Boddice J concurring.

[69]There is no suggestion that any of them was doing anything inappropriate or improper. Indeed when they can be seen on Exhibit 2 they are orderly and compliant with police

[70]Decision, 1 – 5 ll 12 – 18.

[71]Appeal Transcript 1 – 5 ll 13 – 16, 43 – 46.

[72][2010] QCA 28.

[73]Commissioner of Police v Flanagan [2018] QCA 109 at [73]; Whitelaw v O'Sullivan [2010] QCA 366 at [27] per McMurdo P.

[74]Commissioner of Police v Flanagan [2018] QCA 109 at [73].

[75]Respondent’s submissions at 7.2.1 – 7.2.2

[76]Respondent’s submissions at 7.2.3 

[77]Decision 1 – 4 ll 10 – 13.

[78]Decision 1 – 2 ll 39 – 42.

[79]Decision 1 – 3 ll 8 – 12. 

[80]This is the wording used by the Magistrate – I understand from the context of the reasons that this is a reference to Exhibit 2.

[81]Decision 1 – 3 ll 25 – 29.

[82]Decision 1 – 3 ll 31 – 34.

[83]Decision 1 – 4 ll 20 – 31. 

[84]Decision 1 – 5 ll 20 – 44. 

[85]Decision 1 – 5 ll 20 – 33. 

[86]Appeal Transcript1 – 10 l 23.

[87]R v Reuben [2001] QCA 322 at page 6 per Davies JA.

[88]Transcript 1 – 49 ll 45 – 46.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Mohammed v Commissioner of Police

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Mohammed v Commissioner of Police

  • MNC:

    [2022] QDC 265

  • Court:

    QDC

  • Judge(s):

    Dann DCJ

  • Date:

    30 Nov 2022

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Allesch v Maunz (2003) 207 CLR 172
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2003) 207 CLR 172
Allesch v Maunz (2000) 207 CLR 172
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2000) 207 CLR 172
Coleman v Kinbacher [2003] QCA 575
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2003] QCA 575
Commissioner of Police v Flanagan[2019] 1 Qd R 249; [2018] QCA 109
5 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QCA 109
Cite 2 - [2018] QCA 109
Cite 3 - [2018] QCA 109
Cite 4 - [2018] QCA 109
Cite 5 - [2018] QCA 109
Forrest v Commissioner of Police [2017] QCA 132
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QCA 132
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2003) 214 CLR 118
Mbuzi v University of Queensland [2010] QCA 336
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCA 336
R v Hardy [2010] QCA 28
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCA 28
Cite 2 - [2010] QCA 28
Cite 3 - [2010] QCA 28
R v Reuben [2001] QCA 322
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2001] QCA 322
Cite 2 - [2001] QCA 322
Rowe v Kemper[2009] 1 Qd R 247; [2008] QCA 175
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2009] 1 Qd R 247
Sanchez & Sanchez v Commissioner of Police [2021] QDC 76
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QDC 76
Cite 2 - [2021] QDC 76
Sanchez v Commissioner of Police(2022) 12 QR 263; [2022] QCA 212
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCA 212
Cite 2 - [2022] QCA 212
Cite 3 - [2022] QCA 212
Teelow v Commissioner of Police[2009] 2 Qd R 489; [2009] QCA 84
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2009] 2 Qd R 489
Cite 2 - [2009] 2 Qd R 489
White v Commissioner of Police [2014] QCA 121
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QCA 121
Cite 2 - [2014] QCA 121
Cite 3 - [2014] QCA 121
Whitelaw v O'Sullivan [2010] QCA 366
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCA 366
Cite 2 - [2010] QCA 366

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.