Police officer guilty of assault

**davereid** · 10th June 2009, 17:25

A police officer who followed a man onto his driveway, and then arrested him has been found guilty of assault in a private prosecution. The judge has ruled she had no power to arrest and the use of handcuffs constituted an assault. Police will now face a separate claim for false arrest.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10577607

**peasea** · 10th June 2009, 19:24

Oh dear, oh no, arrrrgh, faaaaark, here it comes.....

Just fell off me chair again!

**98tls** · 10th June 2009, 19:31

Great no Coro tonight so this should prove just as worthy.

**CookMySock** · 10th June 2009, 19:32

Thats very interesting. It seems since there was no pursuit, the officer had no right to arrest him on his property, OR even ask him for his details.

Mr Tonks had been uncooperative and initially declined when asked to give his name. Judge Strettell said Mr Tonks had no obligation to be co-operative in the circumstances. The courts had held that a driveway was a private area. Section 119 of the Act provided power for the police to enter private property if an officer suspected that the driver had failed to stop when required, or had committed an offence and there had been a fresh pursuit. He held that without these conditions, the constable had no power to arrest Mr Tonks for failing to provide his details unless he was on a roadway, beach, or a place to which the public had access.

My understanding was, that I had to provide my personal details to an officer at any time, but it seems this is not so.

Steve

**Ixion** · 10th June 2009, 19:46

Originally Posted by DangerousBastard

..
My understanding was, that I had to provide my personal details to an officer at any time, but it seems this is not so.

Steve

Any time in a public place

**peasea** · 10th June 2009, 20:14

Originally Posted by Ixion

Any time in a public place

I've been asked for my details many a time on private property.

**98tls** · 10th June 2009, 20:18

Originally Posted by peasea

I've been asked for my details many a time on private property.

Yea but back then prostitution wasnt legal.

**short-circuit** · 10th June 2009, 20:19

Originally Posted by peasea

I've been asked for my details many a time on private property.

Why? Been a naughty boy?

**Trouser** · 10th June 2009, 20:20

Originally Posted by DangerousBastard

My understanding was, that I had to provide my personal details to an officer at any time, but it seems this is not so.

Not far removed from "Show me your papers"

**peasea** · 10th June 2009, 20:22

Originally Posted by short-circuit

Why? Been a naughty boy?

Often, but I'm serious here. The cops have taken my details on private property heaps of times. I used to be a scallywag as a teenager, always at the wrong (right?) parties, some of which were broken up by riot police. "Details please!" .... "Certainly officer..........."

**peasea** · 10th June 2009, 20:24

Originally Posted by 98tls

Yea but back then prostitution wasnt legal.

Neither was gay sex but I've never been a big fan of hookers, I'm too tight fisted, (which they might enjoy, who knows) and I can't see why you want to have sex with guy when there's perfectly good drunken floosies about.

**short-circuit** · 10th June 2009, 20:32

Originally Posted by peasea

Neither was gay sex but I've never been a big fan of hookers, I'm too tight fisted, (which they might enjoy, who knows) and I can't see why you want to have sex with guy when there's perfectly good drunken floosies about.

Yeah - it's starting to make sense to me why you are a man of interest....to the police

**Ixion** · 10th June 2009, 20:33

Originally Posted by peasea

I've been asked for my details many a time on private property.

OK. Clarification. A police officer may ask for your details any time any place if he has grounds to suspect you have committed an offence. If you are driving a motor vehicle in a public place, he is entitled to demand your details even in the absence of any suspicion of offence . Or, under S119 the police may enter private property if an officer suspected that the driver had failed to stop when required, or had committed an offence and there had been a fresh pursuit.

In the case cited, the officer had no grounds to suspect that the person had committed an offence (hence the reference to no active pursuit etc) ; and he was on private property.

So , in summary

If he reckons you committed a "proper" (non traffic) crime - anywhere any time (not quite - but sort of)
Or, often , if you are connected with a scene where there is evidence of a crime. Like being at a party where quantities of Certain Scheduled Substances are found.
If you done a runner - he can follow you and arrest (or demand ID etc) on private property
If you committed a traffic offence and he is chasing you - ditto
If you are driving in a public place - he can demand ID (ie licence) any time

Otherwise, if you are on private property he has no power to demand ID, or search, or even question (assuming he hasn't got a warrant)

However : there are as always all sorts of exceptions and gotchas. And , by and large there is nothing to be gained by getting up the rozzer's nose. His feet already hurt, why make his nose hurt. Unless you have a reason not to , why not just show him the ID.

The fundamental common law principle, respected for about 1000 years was that no subject could be detained , interrogated or required to produce ID unless the police has some grounds for suspecting him of an offence. Then lots of exceptions got sneaked in, the most notable being that if you are in charge of a motor vehicle, you lose most of your rights. Including the right to not have to produce ID.

This is exactly the same as that senior cop a while ago who also told them to shove off (he wasn't arrested but).