TRUMPED UP ELECTION CHARGES DISMISSED BY TOWNSVILLE COURT -PAT COLEMAN 23/9/19

TRUMPED UP ELECTION CHARGES DISMISSED BY TOWNSVILLE COURT

My Video posted On youtube https://youtu.be/GiJEhF7J3Q0

Video of Prosecutor Stating they wernt proceeding with all 3 charges  last week on my facebook. https://www.facebook.com/pat.coleman.90/posts/10157747323028447


“Thus, I have been acquitted again, and the cops and the State of Qld have no defence to the coming civil action. After conducting my last 4 civil actions for which I had to win at criminal trial first, I claimed the status of ACE with the scalps of 5 cops (one twice to make 6) and vicarious liability of The State for each to make 12 civil scalps and I was robbed of 4 more . I am about to add many more. This makes me one of the highest scoring ACES   IN QLD.”



I was unlawfully arrested at the Townsville pre-poll at The Australian Federal  General Election on 15/5/19.

Today Magistrate Ross Mack said after lengthy submissions by me that he would dismiss the charges of disobeying a police direction , obstruct cops and public nuisance and discharge me.
Whilst he didnt order an acquittal , the cops didnt have a leg to stand on . Its as good as an acquittal in the civil court and Im claIming it as such. In the Greenland civil action , the charges were dropped and I still got him.
I told him I needed a written decision for my civil action . To which he said words to the effect "as night follows day  we surely know is coming"
The arsehole  refused to give me my small printing costs of $300 bucks which lawyers and barristers wouldnt even get out of bed for.
He sought an undertaking from cops that they give me back my trusty SLR camera , its SD Card and cord .

I am going civil . That the  statements of Phil Thompson and Palmer Goon Greg Kaye  are false are to be protected in my submission sent to the CTH Election Inquiry in the Joint Electoral Committee.
Because I am attaching the draft legal argument I was going to use at the trial the cops didnt want, any statement by media or others that I was guilty will be taken down and used in my comming civil action.

 “Thus, I have been acquitted again, and the cops and the State of Qld have no defence to the coming civil action. After conducting my last 4 civil actions for which I had to win at criminal trial first, I claimed the status of ACE with the scalps of 5 cops (one twice to make 6) and vicarious liability of The State for each to make 12 civil scalps and I was robbed of 4 more . I am about to add many more. This makes me one of the highest scoring ACES   IN QLD.”

This Town, on the voting, figures is majority right wing and fascist . All of them willing to overlook corruption. I was unlawfully arrested for loudly pointing that out. These people have been calling for violence against those opposing fascism and corruption. The cops as usual had taken their side. This win against the cops is a win for all the lefty greenies in the north. And its me telling you rednecks to garn get fucked ! Gives finger .

I was unlawfully arrested on May 15 at the Townsville Woodman Court Pre-poll for the 2019 Australian Federal General Election.

I had been handing out leaflets showing the public that despite the EAC ads  and instructions on the ballot, it was legal to put just 1 or more above or only 6 below the line for the senate. The LNP and Palmer crooks didn’t like that.

I made speeches to the voters about Townsville council corruption and donations corruption generally . Right at the point where I was telling them I had gone to the cop station to demand charges for Adani’s Illegal Foreign donations I was arrested.

That Visit and those legals are recorded on my blog here https://cynicismcentraltownsvilleaustralia.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-crimes-of-honeycombes-developer.html   and here https://cynicismcentraltownsvilleaustralia.blogspot.com/2019/02/adani-bribes-illegal-foreign-donations.html

The Cops have withdrawn the charges. There has been no trial therefore, how did I just get found not guilty and acquitted ?  What was the legal basis ? How did I pull that off ?



First the legal basis of the dismissal/acquittal and below, the free speech legal argument I had already prepared to fight the entire trial on.

The background to this and film of  some events (others being kept for the civil action) are on my previous article “VIDS HOW AEC AND LNP/LABOR RIGGED TOWNSVILLE SENATE VOTE –PAT COLEMAN 1/8/19”  https://cynicismcentraltownsvilleaustralia.blogspot.com/2019/07/vids-how-aec-and-lnplabor-rigged.html   and the May 7 2019 Youtube video I made threatening cops with citizens arrest entitled “Citizens arresting Australian Cops” is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3a4z9rn_Nw&feature=youtu.be

THE ACQUITTAL – PROSECUTION FORE-DOOMED TO FAIL

There were to be 8 witnesses.  Two were the now Herbert MP Phil Thompson of The LNP mafia organisation and The Palmer goon Greg Kaye. Their respective parties had done a preference deal to put each 1 and 2 on their HTV’s.

At the 2016 election to Townsville seat of Herbert was decided by 38 votes. Tensions were high and anyone straying from the script and putting an alternate view that could inform voters not to vote the way they were directed and who could as I taunted them swing 50 voters only – was extremely dangerous to them.

The cops were repeatedly called on the 3rd and 7th    May by Fascist nation now Senator nut job Roberts ,  Townsville labor crooks and a rogue Greens infiltrator  aligned with a Townsville Greens office holder and confessed civilian police employee  (whooo ...intrigue ) and on the 15th it was the LNP’s turn.

Extensive film footage was taken by me and cops on their bodycams. I even had the police radio communications conversations prior to their arrival. With that, the prosecution had to proceed on the basis that I had demanded the reasons for arrest and the law said they had to proceed on what they said I had done .

The false allegations in statements by Thompson and Kaye formed no part of that as they had been made up later to attempt to justify the unlawful arrest . A classic “verbal” that has failed in the age of digital cameras.  It showed that there were many independant witnesses to chose from yet it was these 2 with an axe to grind and cops who were to be the only witnesses .They had used this strategy on me on many occasions previously. But I had come armed with a camera and they were forced by law to wear theirs.

The police have said they were “offering no further evidence” . That they were withdrawing the charge. That there will be no further proceedings.  It has been 5 and a half months and they have waited till just before the trial . They do this to wear you down in the hope that something happens to you in the meantime and maybe you will change your plea or get killed by a meteorite. In civil proceedings when I got $30k last time they waited till judgement day and offered me $7k walking up the courthouse steps.

 The law says the court must find this as an abuse of process and refuse to accept the withdrawal of the charges and instead find me not guilty and acquit me as a bar to any further proceedings.

                                     

I had already prepared my legal case and was going to flog them on so many grounds . The prosecutors had done battle with me many times before and I had beaten them. They have admitted its because the statements are false. Film on my facebook at https://www.facebook.com/pat.coleman.90/posts/10157747323028447 

The well known legal authorities I rely on are   :

In The High Court case of Walton v Gardiner [1992-1993] 177 CLR 378 at 393 Per Mason Deane and Dawson JJ “ ...it has long been established that , regardless of the propriety of the person responsible for their institution and maintenance , proceedings will constitute and abuse of process if they can be clearly seen to be foredoomed to fail”

And In R v Saunders [1983] 2 QDr 270 at 274 per Shepherdson J :

“It seems to me that in this passage Lord Devlin correctly points out the path which I propose to follow, and the questions he poses illustrate yet again one other avenue in which the courts have the duty of protecting a citizen from oppression or prejudice which could result from an abuse of the Court’s process. In the circumstances of this case I consider that if I were to accede to the Crown’s request to return the indictment so that it could enter a nolle prosequi I should be yielding to the Crown the responsibility for seeing the process of the criminal law is not abused and this Court would be failing in its duty, which Lord Devlin has described as inescapable. In this case, the Crown’s insistence that it is entitled to the return of the indictment would, in my respectful view, result in compounding what is already an abuse of the Court’s process. To return to Sneesby’s case, I shall say this: I agree with Philp J.’s view that as soon as the nolle prosequi is put into my hands my jurisdiction has gone. While it may have been the practice in Queensland up till 1951 to allow the Crown to put in a nolle prosequi at any stage before verdict, Connelly’s case decided in 1964 has altered that. Any Queensland court asked by the Crown to return an indictment so that it can put in a nolle prosequi may in the particular circumstances of the case need to consider its inherent jurisdiction and the powers referred to in Connelly’s case before deciding whether or not it should accede to the Crown’s request. The Criminal Court can no longer abrogate to the Crown the duty of securing fair treatment for those persons appearing before it. The Crown’s power to enter a nolle prosequi is, in my respectful view, now subject to the court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of its process and, in particular, to the inescapable duty referred to by Lord Devlin in the above quoted passage from Connelly’s case. Thus I distinguish Sneesby’s case. I should add, of course, that Sneesby’s case was quite different from the one now before me in that there was no suggestion in that case of any proven fabricated evidence as the sole evidence against that accused. For the foregoing reasons I decline to return the indictment to enable the Crown to enter a nolle prosequi. I should add that it is a pity that in this case the Crown did not decide to offer no evidence once it found that the only evidence was a fabrication. This is a procedure referred to by Lord Goddard C.J. in Reg. v. The Chairman, County of London Quarter Sessions, ex parte Downes [1954] 1 Q.B. at p. 6 where the Lord Chief Justice said:275

“It is, of course, well-known to every practitioner that, if the prosecution is satisfied that there is a good defence to the charge or that for some reason it is inadvisable to proceed, it is permissible, with the leave of the Court after issue joined, to offer no evidence, when a verdict of acquittal will be directed.””

This was restated in The Qld Court of Appeal in 1991  in the case of  R v Jell , ex Parte ATTORNEY – GENERAL [1991] Qdr 48 at 54 per Macrossan CJ , Thomas and  Lee JJ at 62-64 .

Thus, I have been acquitted again and the cops and the State of Qld have no defence to the coming civil action.

After conducting my last 4 civil actions for which I had to win at criminal trial first, I claimed the status of ACE with the scalps of 5 cops (one twice to make 6) and vicarious liability of The State for each to make 12 civil scalps and I was robbed of 4 more . I am about to add many more. This makes me one of the highest scoring ACES   IN QLD.

Go to this link for cases studies and a guide to what you need to find to win like me .

https://cynicismcentraltownsvilleaustralia.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-conduct-of-dodgy-townsville-ex.html

 I have ALSO  won the following cases:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/pat-coleman/year-2000-verra-sm-tsv-mags-court-not-guilty-of-disorderly-or-obstruct-self-repr/10157357345459759/   

YEAR 2000 VERRA SM – TSV MAGS COURT- NOT GUILTY OF DISORDERLY OR OBSTRUCT

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS MAGISTRATES COURT ~

VERRA SM

BRENDAN JASON: POWER Complainant

and

PATRICK JOHN COLEMAN Defendant   TOVNSVILLE

19/10/2000 DECISION   T1-3/SML (Verra SM). 19102000 T1-3/SML (Verra SM)

Year  9/7/2003-  HILLAN  SM – TSV MAGS COURT,  NOT GUILTY OBSTRUCT COPS X 2 –THE TOWNSVILLE PARLIAMENT CASE . Self represented again !

https://www.facebook.com/notes/pat-coleman/year-2003-hillan-sm-tsv-mags-court-not-guilty-obstruct-cops-x-2-the-townsville-p/10157357471549759/  

UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE 2006 Coleman v Australia https://www.hrlc.org.au/human-rights-case-summaries/coleman-v-australia-hrc-communication-no-11572003-un-doc-ccprc87d11572003-10-august-2006

Power in the Court of Appeal : Leave to appeal : https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2001/QCA01-243.pdf

Decision  https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2001/QCA01-539.pdf

Coleman v Power High Court  http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCATrans/2002/588.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewtoc/au/cases/cth/HCATrans/toc-C.html

Coleman v Greenland and QLD and ors false imprisonment x 2  http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/2004/37.html

Coleman v Watson and QLD and ors false imprisonment x 1  http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/2007/343.html




THE VIDEOS I PUT ON YOUTUBE and my blog at

Me telling cops I would arrest them and them leaving on May 7

Const Wrenn  whom I put on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3a4z9rn_Nw&feature=youtu.be

VIDS HOW AEC AND LNP/LABOR RIGGED TOWNSVILLE SENATE VOTE –PAT COLEMAN 1/8/19

https://cynicismcentraltownsvilleaustralia.blogspot.com/2019/07/vids-how-aec-and-lnplabor-rigged.html

Australian Electoral Commission  Influenced  2019 Senate Vote

https://youtu.be/tgShbsN-pbs

Australian Senator Canavan Misleading voters Townsville 2019 Pt1

https://youtu.be/qUaDPCLCkeI

The Monty Python Sketch referred to in The Cannavan Videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=genF184OllA  

Australian Senator Canavan Misleading voters Townsville 15/5/19 pt2 https://youtu.be/8js_fNDD8qw

LNP Fool  misleading voters in Townsville  2019 Townsville Australia https://youtu.be/gt0iGK1w1rY



THE DRAFT OF THE ARGUMENT I WAS GOING TO  PUT TO THE BEAK AFTER EVIDENCE.

 The coppers already know this. Im calling my shots. It will also be added to and used in the Civil Court . To all media and persons wishing to defame me. Its within your means and power to check before you speak . See how I did that??


THE DRAFT ARGUMENT I WAS TO PUT AT TRIAL.

First of all , a court must read down all legislation to avoid invoking the Implied Freedom of Communication in governmental and political matters in The Australian Constitution . If the issue can be resolved with reference to the general law, then thats how it plays out. However, even if a particular law is not in itself invalid, the common law historically used to interpret it must be overridden to protect conduct that isn’t a breach of the peace and is not racist. Lange v The ABC, Kirby J in ABC v Lenah Game meats.

The Grounds for throwing out the crown case briefly were;

(1) I was unlawfully assaulted prior to arrest by the arresting officer. Therefore all evidence must be excluded and I be found not guilty;

(2) My conduct was protected by The freedom of communication Implied in The Australian Constitution;

(3) The police were not authorised under s348(1) of The CTH Electoral Act https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00103/Download

and therefore s802 of The Police Powers and responsibilities Act QLD to give me a move on direction under state law.

(4) The complaints by LNP candidate Phil Thompson and Palmer goon Greg Kaye , and prosecution by cops was for an ulterior purpose as they were dishonestly made s408(c) –(e)-(f)-(g) and (2) Criminal Code and politically motivated Trobridge v Hardy [1955] HCA 68; (1955) 94 CLR 147 (7 December 1955) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1955/68.html

(5) By virtue of s109 of the constitution , the CTH Crimes Act 1914 s4 (Interpretation- definition of police officer applies to Qld cops) and s3ZD that states they must tell you “at the time of the arrest” Overrides S 391 of the PPRA “as soon as is reasonably practicable after the arrest”

(6) That being the case, the cops had to be held to what they said the unlawful move on direction was for as that was what I was reacting to .They were asked if it was for public nuisance and on film denied it.

(7) Though I was arrested for (1) Disobeying a direction and (1) obstruct police. The charges were changed after the fact to state that I was arrested for (1) public nuisance (2) disobeying a direction and (3) Obstruct. This proved they knew the direction charge would fail and had to make up another for a public nuisance charge. Who solicited whom to make the false statement doesn’t matter. It was done and they are co offenders and accessories.

(8) Thus , what was said by cops, including orders by a superior officer under s365(A)(1) and (2)(a) and (b) of the PPRA , had to be on “reasonable grounds” under federal law , and even if s 365 is capable of operating concurrently and the officer must have a “reasonable suspicion” , it must be that “an offence” has been committed and,” if it is reasonably necessary” . All evidence showed that none referred to the false statements of Thompson or Kaye in radio communications or on film or in telling me what they were about. The evidence at its highest was that it was for “causing anxiety”. That people in a hurry were leaving the line up to come back later and it was blamed on me. No offence was committed in law . No breach of the peace was committed. No public nuisance was committed .

(1) The First grounds of defence.

I was going to tell the beak that here comes a massive argument taking every point of law from the constitutional freedom of communication to the CTH Electoral Act, Constitutional s109 statutory inconsistency with s 3ZD of The CTH Crimes Act , to breach of the peace law and many cases on reasonable grounds, belief and suspicion . Thousands of pages he would have to go through.

But, there was an easy way out , you see , the videos show that as soon as the arresting copper rocked up she forcefully grabbed my arm. And when I demanded whether I was under arrest she said NO!

That was an unlawful assault . That being so , everything that happened after that is said by the law to be unlawful and all evidence proferred by the prosecution would have been excluded . An easy one for the beak . In The High Court case of Walton v Gardiner [1992-1993] 177 CLR 378 at 393 Per Mason Deane and Dawson JJ “ ...it has long been established that , regardless of the propriety of the person responsible for their institution and maintenance , proceedings will constitute and abuse of process if they can be clearly seen to be foredoomed to fail”

So, s 245 ,246 and s335 of The Qld Criminal Code set out :

245 Definition of assault

(1) A person who strikes, touches, or moves, or otherwise applies force of any kind to, the person of another, either directly or indirectly, without the other person’s consent, or with the

other person’s consent if the consent is obtained by fraud, or who by any bodily act or gesture attempts or threatens to apply force of any kind to the person of another without the other

person’s consent, under such circumstances that the person making the attempt or threat has actually or apparently a present ability to effect the person’s purpose, is said to assault that other person, and the act is called an assault.

(2) In this section—

applies force includes the case of applying heat, light, electrical force, gas, odour, or any other substance or thing whatever if applied in such a degree as to cause injury or

personal discomfort.

246 Assaults unlawful

(1) An assault is unlawful and constitutes an offence unless it is authorised or justified or excused by law.

(2) The application of force by one person to the person of another may be unlawful, although it is done with the consent of that other person.

335 Common assault

(1) Any person who unlawfully assaults another is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable, if no greater punishment is provided, to imprisonment for 3 years.

(2) The Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, section 108B states a circumstance of aggravation for an offence against this section.

The Authorities on exclusion of evidence

YEAR 2000 TATNELL SM –TSV MAGS COURT -NOT GUILTY DISOBEYING MOVE ON AND OBSTRUCT – SELF REPRESENTED AGAIN https://www.facebook.com/notes/pat-coleman/year-2000-tatnell-sm-tsv-mags-court-not-guilty-disobeying-move-on-and-obstruct-s/10157357516124759/

In Greenland v Coleman . I pleaded not guilty to disobeying a move on direction and obstruct

The matter went to trial in Townsville Magistrates Court before Tatnell (SM) on 25/5/99, 18/8/99, and I was acquitted on the 26th April 2000 (see the decision of Tatnell SM, file no. 26042000 T1-3/TVS M/T TSV 4144 pages 5 to 11 .

His worship held at p 10

“ I have considered the case of Foster v The Queen (1997) 67 ALJR at 550 where it was held by the majority:

“that having regard to the nature and effect of the infringement of the appellants rights and to other relevant factors, the case is one in which the proper exercise of the trial judges discretion required the exclusion of the confessional statement on the grounds of fairness and also on public policy grounds”

“ It appears to me the facts and circumstances of this case are in line with that of Foster v The Queen”

“ I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was lawfully arrested on charge 1 and that at the time the defendant is alleged to have obstructed Greenland, that Greenland was acting in the performance of his duties. For those reasons I now find in relation to charge 2 that the prosecution have failed to prove all elements of that offence beyond a reasonable doubt. That charge is dismissed and the defendant is discharged. Having dismissed that charge, for the reasons stated, it follows that the search of the defendant in which the handcuffs were located would also be unlawful.”

See Also Bunning v Cross [1978] HCA 22; (1978) 141 CLR 54 (14 June 1978) and Ridgeway v R [1995] HCA 66; (1995) 129 ALR 41; (1995) 69 ALJR 484; (1995) 184 CLR 19 The Queen v Stafford (1976) 13 SASR 392 at 400,401

(2) The Constitutional defence

WHAT RIGHT DID I HAVE TO BE AT THE TOWNSVILLE PRE-POLL

My conduct was protected by the implied freedom of communication in governmental and political matters. This freedom creates and area of freedom from legal control see Lange v The ABC [1997] 189 CLR at 560), citizens have an interest in imparting and receiving information about such matters (ibid 570), the freedom protects conduct as well as words (see Levy v Victoria [1997] 189 CLR at 595, 613, 617, 622, 623, 638), it is universal as to time and place (Kruger v CTH [1996] 190 CLR 1 at 46 and 125

Article 19 of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and The International Covenant on Civil and Political rights protect the right to Freedom of Expression and to impart information and ideas.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee upheld my right to Peaceful freedom of expression of political matters of public interest under Article 19 of The ICCPR in 2006 . Coleman v Australia https://www.hrlc.org.au/human-rights-case-summaries/coleman-v-australia-hrc-communication-no-11572003-un-doc-ccprc87d11572003-10-august-2006

In Goldie v Commonwealth of Australia [2002] FCAFC 100 (12 April 2002) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2002/100.html  at par[4] The full bench of the Federal Court of Australia had regard to an applied article 9 which is Arbitrary arrest. This is a good precedent . Also in -

MIMIA v Al Masri [2003] FCAFC 70 15 April 2003 The Federal Court of Australia held on the worth of UN Committee decisions:

[149] Although the views of the Committee lack precedential authority in an

Australian court, it is legitimate to have regard to them as the opinions of an expert

body established by the treaty to further its objects by performing functions that

include reporting, receiving reports, conciliating and considering claims that a State

Party is not fulfilling its obligations. The Committee’s functions under the Optional

Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which

Australia has acceded (effective as of 25 December 1991) are particularly relevant in

this respect. They include receiving, considering and expressing a view about claims

by individuals that a State Party to the Protocol has violated covenanted rights. The

conclusion that it is appropriate for a court to have regard to the views of such a body

concerning the construction of a treaty is also supported by the observations of Kirby

J in Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488 at 501-502, and of Katz J in

Commonwealth v Hamilton (2000) 108 FCR 378 at 387, citing some observations of

Black CJ in Commonwealth v Bradley (1999) 95 FCR 218 at 237. See also The Queen

v Sin Yau-Ming [1992] 1 HKCLR 127 at 141. It is appropriate, as well, to have

regard to the opinions expressed in works of scholarship in the field of international

law, including opinions based upon the jurisprudence developed within international

bodies, such as the Committee.

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law”( extract from the Preamble of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

“Suppression of such criticism of government and government officials removes an important safeguard of the legitimate claims of individuals to live peacefully and with dignity in an ordered and democratic society. Indeed, if that suppression be institutionalized, it constitutes a threat to the very existence of such a society in that it reduces the possibility of peaceful change and removes an essential restraint upon excess or misuse of governmental power” Nationwide News(1992) 177 CLR 1 at par [25] Deane and Toohey JJ

There is an obligation on electors to chose wisely. Citizens who take it seriously have an interest in, and a duty to their society and the body politic (Mulholland 233 CLR at par [84] per Gummow , Kirby and Crennan JJ) to make sure we don’t slide back into the white Australia Policy, AUSTRALIAN APARTHIED (ibid [78] ).

The High Court stated in McCloy at par[45]:

“Equality of opportunity to participate in the exercise of political sovereignty is an aspect of the representative democracy guaranteed by our Constitution. In ACTV, the law which was struck down was inimical to equal participation by all the people in the political process and this was fatal to its validity. The risk to equal participation posed by the uncontrolled use of wealth may warrant legislative action to ensure, or even enhance, the practical enjoyment of popular sovereignty.”

In The recent High Court case of Clubb v Edwards , Preston v Avery [2019] HCA 11 10 April 2019 at pars [51] [82] [98] [99] [101] [197], THE MAJORITY AGREED WITH THE OLD DISSENTERS THAT THE PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN !

· Deane and Toohey JJNationwide News (1992) 177 CLR 1 at 72

“The people of the Commonwealth would be unable responsibly to discharge and exercise the powers of governmental control which the Constitution reserves to them if each person was an island, unable to communicate with any other person. The actual discharge of the very function of voting in an election or referendum involves communication. An ability to vote intelligently can exist only if the identity of the candidates for election or the content of a proposed law submitted for the decision of the people at a referendum can be communicated to the voter. The ability to cast a fully informed vote in an election of members of the Parliament depends upon the ability to acquire information about the background, qualifications and policies of the candidates for election and about the countless number of other circumstances and considerations, both factual and theoretical, which are relevant to a consideration of what is in the interests of the nation as a whole or of particular localities, communities or individuals within it.” Langer [1996] HCA 43; (1996) 186 CLR 302 at p 333 per Toohey and Gaudron JJ at par [17]

“[17] There is, perhaps, more force in an argument that an individual who is "elected on final preferences" (48) is not properly described as "chosen by the people". However, in our view, such a person is as much "chosen by the people" as a candidate who is unopposed and declared "duly elected" pursuant to s 179(3) of the Act and who, as already indicated, is properly encompassed in the expression "chosen by the people". This notwithstanding, it may be that the same could not be said if the outcome of an election were to depend on deemed preferences because of the operation of one or other of the provisos to s 268(1)(c) of the Act. If in the event of a tied vote, for example, the candidate for whom fewer voters expressed a final preference were to be declared elected, it may be that he or she could not accurately be described as "chosen by the people" (49). That, however, is a question that is separate and distinct from any question as to the validity of s 240 of the Act. Moreover, it is a question that may never arise.”

Any Reference to “causing anxiety” under the Qld move one powers would fail just as the provisions dealing with “insulting Language” fell in Coleman v Power :

Power in the Court of Appeal : Leave to appeal : https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2001/QCA01-243.pdf

Decision https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2001/QCA01-539.pdf

Coleman v Power High Court http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCATrans/2002/588.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewtoc/au/cases/cth/HCATrans/toc-C.html

The statutory basis lies in The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 .

The act sets up that turning up to hand out leaflets to those going to vote , generally known as “How to votes” in Australia , is protected “Election Conduct” .

Whilst s 4AA Meaning of electoral matter states :

(1) Electoral matter means matter communicated or intended to be communicated for the dominant purpose of influencing the way electors vote in an election (a federal election) of a member of the House of Representatives or of Senators for a State or Territory, including by promoting or opposing:

(a) a political entity, to the extent that the matter relates to a federal election; or

(b) a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator.

Note: Communications whose dominant purpose is to educate their audience on a public policy issue, or to raise awareness of, or encourage debate on, a public policy issue, are not for the dominant purpose of influencing the way electors vote in an election (as there can be only one dominant purpose for any given communication).

Whilst by informing voters they had to right to only put 1 above or 6 below the line in the senate election fell within the current wording of s4AA(1)The note on s4AA(1) and the rest of the “Electoral Matter” section would purport to exclude protected communications that didn’t tell people who to vote. The Act attempts to limit protection to matters that only have

“a dominant purpose” of communication about the election .That Journalistic or academic comments would not be protected. So much of that section that says that is invalid .

In John Fairfax Publications v AG NSW (2000) 158 FLR 81 at [95]-[96] per Spigelman CJ

a state contempt of court law was held to be invalid because it required a closed court even if the person who had been

acquitted of contempt, which in that case being a paper, was found to be not guilty – it was held that though the majority did not believe that matters of merely state concern were protected in themselves that-

[85].. It is true, as the Attorney submitted, that these functions are performed in a particular capacity as First Law Officer. But this is not inconsistent with the subject matter being governmental or political. The conduct of the Attorney in this respect is capable of giving rise to political issues about the performance by him of his official duties.

[86]Insofar as this second basis focuses on the responsibility of a State Minister to a State Parliament and her or his accountability to a State electorate, I do not understand the line of authority in the High Court to go that far. There are references, including in the passages from Lange which I have quoted above, which envisage the possibility that State legislation may impinge upon the scope of the Constitutional immunity, but that is because of the

impact that State legislation restrictive of freedom of expression may have upon the ability to communicate with respect to matters of actual or potential concern within the system of representative and responsible government established by the Constitution for the Commonwealth.

There, the matters were, .the activity of both state and federal law enforcement with

respect to the drug trade., budgetary cuts and casinos among other issues of public

significance ibid [97], [98]

It was held –

" There is no doubt that the solicitor generals submission is correct in the sense that one characterisation of the articles is that they concern "the drug trade.. However, the Lange test does not require the subject matter of the communication be capable of characterisation in only one way, that is, as "governmental or political communications.. If the communications can be characterised in that way, as a matter of substance, then, irrespective of any other characterisation which may also be accurate, they fall within the constitutional immunity"

All politics, local, state and federal are interrelated. Federal Candidates are local branch and state branch members under state laws. Any argument that s327 doesnt protect these communications or the right to act will fail.

S327(1) Of the CTH Electoral act states :

327 Interference with political liberty etc.

(1) A person shall not hinder or interfere with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty that is relevant to an election under this Act.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months or 10 penalty units, or both.

THE QLD CRIMINAL CODE PROVISION DEALING WITH INTERFERING WITH POLICAL LIBERTY

S78 Interfering with political liberty

(1) Any person who by violence, or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise of any political right by another person, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.

(2) If the offender is a public officer, and commits the offence in abuse of the offender’s authority as such officer, the offender is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.

In Hudson v Entsch [2005] FCA 460 DOWSETT J held:

“56 In my view, the approach urged by the Electoral Commission is unduly narrow. If applied to s 326, it would deprive pars 326(1)(c) and 326(2)(c) of virtually any effect. There is very little point in trying to change a person’s opinion by the use of force or detriment. Opinions, of themselves, are of little effect. It is the manifestation of such opinions which may affect others. In protecting a person’s right to stand for office or to vote freely, s 326 protects rights to act. There is no reason to doubt that in protecting the right to support or oppose a candidate, the subsection also protects the right to act. If, as I consider, subs 327(1) seeks to protect, at least, the same aspects of the electoral process as does s 326, it follows that the sub-section proscribes the use of violence, detriment or threats thereof, intended to affect a person’s right to manifest his or her views concerning a candidate, group or party.”

I take you to the NT full Court case of Watson v Trennery [1998] 122 NTR 1 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nt/NTCA/1998/22.pdf http://www.supremecourt.nt.gov.au/archive/doc/sentencing_remarks/0/98/0/NS000280.htm

Which sets out why (quoting the authorities ) political protest in itself is neither a breach of the peace nor disorderly .

Per Angel J “ The peaceable combination of people in public places for the purposes of expressing opinions and of protest against political decisions is but the exercise of the ordinary civil freedoms of opinion, of speech, of assembly and of association. These freedoms reflect the importance our society places on open discussion and the search for truth, the need for diversified opinions to be known and for the strengths and weaknesses of those opinions to be identified, the right to criticise, the value of tolerance of the opinions of others, and the social commitment to the value of individual autonomy, all vital to the health of any

democratic system of open government. A peaceful demonstration or protest, whether by assembly or procession in a street is nowadays accepted by members of the community as a safety valve for the community and potentially at least as an agent for change and for the good. An ordinary incident of any assembly or procession through the streets is some inconvenience to others. Protests test tolerance of difference and of inconvenience. There may be some noise. Members of the public may witness and hear messages they did not wish to see and to hear. They may consider such messages to be anathema. There may be a gross affront to some sensibilities. Nonetheless peaceable protests are to be tolerated in the recognition of the freedom of others to hold different opinions, to speak, to assemble, and to associate. As Bray CJ said extra-curially on one occasion, "Diversity is the protectress of freedom.",

Per Mildren J ..... “it is not against the law to protest at the actions of a foreign government or its armed forces or to burn its flag or the flag of its army, as such, as a means of political protest. Whatever we may think of this type of political protest or the message it conveys, is not to the point. Nor are we in the least concerned by any clamour by politicians or the popular press that people who do these things should be prosecuted. But, because it is of the nature of things that protestors are sometimes prosecuted by the authorities, and there are sometimes serious misgivings about the motives for such prosecutions”

The Above case is authority on what is not disorderly. See also Courtney v Peacock [2008] QDC 87 . Where it was held applying my Case , Coleman v Power , that standing on the side of the road with a sign angering police was not public nuisance http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2008/QDC08-087.pdf

See also Dillon v Byrne (1972) QPJR 112 at 133, 22 QLR 4 , Williams v Pinnock [1983] 68 FLR 303, Turner v Patterson [1908] NZLR 207, R v Howell [1981] 3 ALL ER 383 at 388 and 389, Inness v Weate [1984] Tas R 14, Wornes v Rankmore [1986] QR 85 at 87, 104,105, Bhattacharya v State of New South Wales & Anor [2003] NSWSC 261 at [39]) Forbutt v Blake [1981] 51 FLR at 469 Per Connor J “I do not accept the suggestion that a remote possibility of a breach of the peace will call up a duty in a constable to act”

And at 475 “I am unable to attribute an intention to the legislature to expose a person to such a penalty for disobeying a police order to cease lawful activity where the only relevant police duty is to prevent a breach of the peace by other citizens . What was said by Justice Obrien in R v Londonderry justices seems much in point “if danger arises from the exercise of lawful rights resulting in a breach of the peace, the remedy is the presence of sufficient force to prevent the result, not the legal condemnation of those who exercise those rights”

See also Osullivan v Lunnon [1986] 163 CLR at 554 “a police instruction to disperse, is not of course any evidence that an offence was being committed”

“Blind unquestioning obedience is the law of tyrants and of slaves” (see Christie v Leachinsky (1947 AC 573 at 591-592, applied in Adams v Kennedy (2000) 49 NSWLR78 at 83)

See also Coleman v Power[2002] 2 QDR 620 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2001/539.html  and High Court [2004] HCA 39; 220 CLR 1; 209 ALR 182; 78 ALJR 1166 (1 September 2004) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2004/39.html

A constitutional right to ignore such a direction (Metwally [1984] 158 CLR at 477per Deane J http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1985/28.html

The text of my Leaflets fell squarely in the area that was to be protected by the freedom of communication . I WAS IDENTIFYING OFFENCES . I WAS TELLING PEOPLE THEIR LAWFUL RIGHTS. COPS WERE IN THE LINE UP AND REFUSED TO ACT

AS STATED ABOVE IN Innes v Weate , the only duty of the police was to prevent a breach of the peace ON ME . When asked to ask the AEC in my leaflets it was their duty to do so and inform the feds. They didn’t and this was an offence under s92A and

200 Refusal by public officer to perform duty https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1899-009#sch.1-sec.200

204 Disobedience to statute law https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1899-009#sch.1-sec.204

THE TEXT of my leaflet.

WWW.CYNICISMCENTRALTOWNSVILLEAUSTRALIA.BLOGSPOT.COM

Look at what was said by Anthony Albanese in 2013 for instance “That’s why compulsory preferential (voting) is such a winner .It just stops these pricks from grand-standing the way they love to do by just saying ‘vote one’ . They have to make a choice, which is something they hate to do” (The Australian 23-4 -2013 p 18)

s329 Of The CTH Electoral Act: Misleading or deceptive publications etc.

(1) A person shall not, during the relevant period in relation to an election under this Act, print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or authorize to be printed, published or distributed, any matter or thing that is likely to mislead or deceive an elector in relation to the casting of a vote.” https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00103/Download

The voting system for the House of Representatives (Green ballot) is unconstitutional and this is set out on my blog above. Everyone has internet on their phone with which to check everything I tell you. And you have till May 18 6pm to vote or not. Anyone can take

my High Court Election Injunction argument on my blog above to a lawyer and go to court if you have the means. You have my blessing if you are a lefty.

FOR THE SENATE BALLOT PAPER: Despite what the AEC tells you, you only have to put 1 above the line or 6 below for it to be formal. Its you who directs prefs if you chose to. Ask them what a formal vote is and record it on your phone. If they lie to you its an offence under s325. Cases are linked on my blog argument above. FOR THE SENATE – TO BE A FORMAL VOTE ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS 1 ABOVE THE LINE OR 6 BELOW IF YOU WISH ACCORDING TO THE LAW.

The relevant provisions of the CTH Electoral Act state : https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00103/Download

268A Formal votes below the line

(1) A ballot paper in a Senate election is not informal under paragraph 268(1)(b) if:

(b) if there are more than 6 squares printed on the ballot paper below the line—the voter has consecutively numbered any of those squares from 1 to 6 (whether or not the voter has also included one or more higher numbers in those squares).

269 Formal votes above the line

(1) A ballot paper in a Senate election is not informal under paragraph 268(1)(b) if:

(a) the voter has marked the ballot paper in accordance with subsection 239(2); or

(b) the voter has marked the number 1, or the number 1 and one or more higher numbers, in squares printed on the ballot paper above the line.

This was upheld as formal by the High Court BEFORE the last election in pars [33] and [34] of this full bench decision against the then god botherer Senator Day , in Day v Australian Electoral Officer for the State of South Australia; Madden v Australian Electoral Officer for the State of Tasmania [2016] HCA 20 http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2016/20.html

Why did I vote informal for the House of Reps ?: Compulsory preferential voting forces us to play “who is the better nazi and mafia crook” or our votes are informal. IM NOT PLAYING !

Because I have been a long time advocate of optional preferential voting for the house of reps, and because we used to have it for Qld state elections, if I could only just vote 1- I would. My prefs don’t then fall into the wrong hands. But because we have compulsory preferential (which is unconstitutional) you have to fill out all boxes on the green ballot paper. This conscripts us into the LNP or ALP cos we can’t stop them getting our vote against our will. So how, in this very tight electorate of Herbert do I vote and still stop my prefs falling into fascist and corrupt hands?? I cast an informal vote. The only difference is that my candidate- if I have one doesn’t get the public money per vote after the election

In item 6 , in the section of my constitutional argument (My Blog above) entitled “The Proportionality argument” against CPV I said “By virtue of s 200DJ(1) and (3) , s200DK and

s206 of The Electoral Act , an elector is marked off as receiving the ballot once identified and goes to cast that ballot in private and in the secrecy of the booth. That vote is recorded as having been cast and no other elector can use it .

No commission staff may disclose information identifying an electors vote or about how the person voted. No prosecution if any could be instigated for informal voting. The practical effect of this is that is not illegal to cast an informal ballot into the box to deny it “falling into the wrong hands’ through being forced to mark ballots against the electors wishes .It complies with s245(1) where it states “(1) It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election” . The elector has voted. But for the terms of the compulsory preferential provisions, an elector could lawfully be taken to have “voted against” all candidates. This is supposed to be protected by s327(1).

The Federal 2016 results for Herbert (Based on Townsville) came down to 37 votes and house majority was 1 https://results.aec.gov.au/20499/Website/HouseDivisionPage-20499-165.htm  The 1995 Qld State seat Mundingburra (Based on Suburbs of Townsville) results were that 635 people exhausted their preferences . Then after the remainder were distributed there was a 16 vote difference between the parties under the then Optional Preferential system. The state election turned on 16 votes . (see my blog for Supreme Court case links that changed the gov)

Without a doubt, its literacy, technology and access to information that is causing the old order to shake just as it with the reformation and the printing press. These 2 elections alone invoke what was hinted at in Langer above [1996] HCA 43; (1996) 186 CLR 302 at p 333 per Toohey and Gaudron JJ at par [17] .

(3) Defence ground 3. The cops wernt authorised by s348(1) of The CTH Electoral Act and therefore s802 of the PPRA to give me a direction .

At all times I had demanded the reason for giving me the direction and arrest. At no stage did the cops allege they were acting under orders (if lawful) by the AEC Officer in charge .

s348(1) of the CTH Electoral Act where it states :

Control of behaviour at polling booths etc. ( 1) A person shall not:

(a) commit misconduct in premises to which this section applies;

(b) while in such premises, disobey a lawful direction given by the person in charge of the premises; or

(c) enter or remain in such premises without the permission of the person in charge of the premises

And ss (4) (4) The person in charge of premises is: (a) in the case of a polling booth--the presiding officer or substitute presiding officer; (b) in the case of a counting centre--the Australian Electoral Officer, DRO or Assistant Returning Officer conducting the scrutiny at the centre; and

(c) in the case of premises at which an application may be made for a pre-poll vote:

(i) if the premises are the office of a DRO--the DRO; (ii) if the premises are a pre-poll voting office--any pre-poll voting officer at those premises. (5) A person who contravenes subsection (1) may be removed from the premises by a police officer or by an authorised person.

(6) In this section:

"authorised person" means a person acting at the request of the person in charge of premises.

PPRA 802 Presumption about exercise of powers under prescribed
 authority

A court must find the exercise of a power by a police officer or law enforcement officer was not authorised by a prescribed authority if—

(a) an issue arises in a proceeding before the court whether the exercise of the power was authorised by a prescribed authority; and

(b) the authority is not produced in evidence; and

(c) it is not proved by the police officer or law enforcement officer relying on the lawfulness of the exercise of the power that a police officer or law enforcement officer obtained the prescribed authority.

DEFENCE GROUND 4. The complaints by LNP candidate Phil Thompson and Palmer goon Greg Kaye , and prosecution by cops was for an ulterior purpose as they were dishonestly made s408(c) –(e)-(f)-(g) and (2) Criminal Code and politically motivated Trobridge v Hardy [1955] HCA 68; (1955) 94 CLR 147 (7 December 1955) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1955/68.html

The cops had all the film to prove there were independent witnesses. Instead , only Thompson and Kaye and cops were to give evidence. At no stage was the arrest for what was

alleged in the false statements. It was a set up. The not guilty verdict bars them from denying the falsity.

Qld Criminal code

92A Misconduct in relation to public office

(1) A public officer who, with intent to dishonestly gain a benefit for the officer or another person or to dishonestly cause a detriment to another person—

(a) deals with information gained because of office; or

(b) performs or fails to perform a function of office; or

(c) without limiting paragraphs (a) and (b), does an act or makes an omission in abuse of the authority of office; is guilty of a crime.

Maximum penalty—7 years imprisonment.

408C Fraud

(1) A person who dishonestly—

(e) causes a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise, to any

person; or

(f) induces any person to do any act which the person is lawfully entitled to abstain from doing; or

(g) induces any person to abstain from doing any act which that person is lawfully entitled to do;

(2) An offender guilty of the crime of fraud is liable to imprisonment for 5 years

DEFENCE GROUNDS 5-8

S 391 PPRA QLD (1) A police officer who arrests a person, whether or not under a

warrant, must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after the arrest, inform the person that the person is under arrest and of the nature of the offence for which the person is arrested.

CTH Crimes Act 1914 Part I—Preliminary 3 Interpretation

(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

“constable means a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police or a member of the police force or police service of a State or Territory.”

S3ZD of The CTH Crimes Act 1914

3ZD Persons to be informed of grounds of arrest

(1) A person who arrests another person for an offence must inform the other person, at the time of the arrest, of the offence for which the other person is being arrested.

(2) It is sufficient if the other person is informed of the substance of the offence, and it is not necessary that this be done in language of a precise or technical nature.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the arrest of the other person if:

(a) the other person should, in the circumstances, know the substance of the offence for which he or she is being arrested; or

(b) the other person’s actions make it impracticable for the person making the arrest to inform the other person of the offence for which he or she is being arrested.

(1) The arresting officer did not hold If reliance were placed on following orders of a superior officer of cops, those orders under s 365(A)(2)9a) and (b) were unlawful

Clearly , s3ZD of the crimes act overrides s 391 of the PPRA because You MUST be told at THE TIME OF ARREST what its for . The courts have said its so you can decide whether its law, and you can lawfully resist .

Adams v Kennedy and ors (2000) 49 NSWLR 78 at par [17] applying Christie v Leachinsky (1947) AC 573 at 587-588). http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2000/152.html

17 In Christie, Viscount Simon, after referring to decisions and authorities going as far back as the first edition of Burn's Justice of the Peace in 1755, said:

"The above citations, and others which are referred to by my noble and learned friend, Lord du Parcq, seem to me to establish the following propositions. (1) If a policeman arrests without warrant upon reasonable suspicion of felony, or of other crime of a sort which does not require a warrant, he must in ordinary circumstances inform the person arrested of the true ground of arrest. He is not entitled to keep the reason to himself or to give a reason which is not the true reason. In other words a citizen is entitled to know on what charge or on suspicion of what crime he is seized. (2) If the citizen is not so informed but is nevertheless seized, the policeman, apart from certain exceptions, is liable for false imprisonment. (3) The requirement that the person arrested should be informed of the reason why he is seized naturally does not exist if the circumstances are such that he must know the general nature of the alleged offence for which he is detained. (4) The requirement that he should be so informed does not mean that technical or precise language need be used. The matter is a matter of substance, and turns on the elementary proposition that in this country a person is, prima facie, entitled to his freedom and is only required to submit to restraints on his freedom if he knows in substance the reason why it is claimed that this restraint should be imposed. (5) The person arrested cannot complain that he has not been supplied with the above information as and when he should be, if he himself produces the situation which makes it practically impossible to inform him, eg, by immediate counter-attack or by running away. There may well be other exceptions to the general rule in addition to those I have indicated, and the above propositions are not intended to constitute a formal or complete code, but to indicate the general principles of our law on a very important matter. These principles equally apply to a private person who arrests on suspicion. If a policeman who entertained a reasonable suspicion that X has committed a felony were at liberty to arrest him and march him off to a police station without giving any explanation of why he was doing this, the prima facie right of personal liberty would be gravely infringed." (at 587-8)

18 Lord Simonds spoke to the same effect:

"Putting first things first, I would say that it is the right of every citizen to be free from arrest unless there is in some other citizen, whether a constable or not, the right to arrest him. And I would say next that it is the corollary of the right of every citizen to be thus free from arrest that he should be entitled to resist arrest unless that arrest is lawful. How can these rights be reconciled with the proposition that he may be arrested without knowing why he is arrested? ... Is citizen A bound to submit unresistingly to arrest by citizen B in ignorance of the charge made against him? I think, my Lords, that cannot be the law of England. Blind, unquestioning obedience is the law of tyrants and of slaves: it does not yet flourish on English soil. I would, therefore, submit the general proposition that it is a condition of lawful arrest that the man arrested should be entitled to know why he is arrested, and then, since the affairs of life seldom admit an absolute standard or an unqualified proposition, see whether any qualification is of necessity imposed upon it." (at 591-2)

19 A little later Lord Simonds cited with approval what had been said by Lord Cranworth in Hooper v Lane [1857] EngR 830; (1859) 6 HLC 443; 10 ER 1368, speaking of the obligation of the Sheriff when executing a writ of arrest for debt:

"... to make known the ground of the arrest, in order, among other reasons, that the person arrested may know whether he is or is not bound to submit to the arrest." (at 592)

20 Lord Simonds remarked that what Lord Cranworth had said was "a clear illustration of the principle ... that if a man is to be deprived of his freedom he is entitled to know the reason why" (at 592).

21 Lord Simonds said (at 592-3) that the qualifications which he thought should be imposed upon the fundamental rule were: (a) an arrest would not be wrongful if the arresting constable told the person arrested that he was to be charged for one felony, say murder, notwithstanding that the person was subsequently charged with another felony, say manslaughter, so long as the arresting constable reasonably suspected that murder had been done; (b) there was no need to explain the reason of arrest if the arrested person was caught red-handed; (c) nor when it was important to secure a possibly violent criminal; (d) nor when a person was arrested and detained upon a stated charge of which the person was reasonably suspected, with a view to further investigation of a second charge. A little later he said that "the principle" which was "the heart of the matter" was that the arrested person was entitled to be told what was the act for which the arrest was made (at 593).

22 Lord du Parcq also accepted (at 598) the general rule which Lord Simon had quoted from Burn's Justice of the Peace (at 598) and that the general rule was subject to exceptions. He went on:

"The principles ... follow from the governing rule of the common law that a man is entitled to his liberty, and may, if necessary, defend his own freedom by force. If another person has a lawful reason for seeking to deprive him of that liberty, that person must as a general rule tell him what the reason is, for, unless he is told, he cannot be expected to submit to arrest, or blamed for resistance." (at 598)

23 Later in his opinion, Lord du Parcq concisely stated two points directly relevant to the present case:

"The omission to tell a person who is arrested at, or within a reasonable time of, the arrest with what offence he is charged cannot be regarded as a mere irregularity. Arrest and imprisonment, without a warrant, on a charge which does not justify arrest, are unlawful and, therefore, constitute false imprisonment ..." (at 600)

Adamas v Kennedy and Christie were recently approved again by the full bench of the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal R v TIPPING [2019] SASCFC 41

365 Arrest without warrant

(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) to ensure the person’s appearance before a court;

(d) to obtain or preserve evidence relating to the offence;

(e) to prevent the harassment of, or interference with, a

person who may be required to give evidence relating to

the offence;

(f) to prevent the fabrication of evidence;

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

including the person arrested;

(h) to prevent a person fleeing from a police officer or the

location of an offence;

(i) because the offence is an offence against section 790 or 791;

(j) because the offence is an offence against the Domestic

and Family Violence Protection Act 2012, section 177,

178 or 179;

(k) because of the nature and seriousness of the offence;

(l) because the offence is—

(i) an offence against the Corrective Services Act

2006, section 135(4); or

(ii) an offence to which the Corrective Services Act

2006, section 136 applies.

(2) Also, it is lawful for a police officer, without warrant, to arrest

a person the police officer reasonably suspects has committed

or is committing an indictable offence, for questioning the

person about the offence, or investigating the offence, under

chapter 15.

(3) Subject to the Youth Justice Act 1992, section 13, it is lawful

for a police officer to arrest a child without warrant if the

police officer reasonably suspects the child is committing or

has committed an offence.

Note—

Under the youth justice principles in the Youth Justice Act 1992,

schedule 1, it is a principle of that Act that a child should be detained in

custody for an offence, whether on arrest or sentence, only as a last

resort and for the least time that is justified in the circumstances.

365A Arrest without warrant upon instruction of another police

officer

(1) It is lawful for a police officer (the arresting officer), without

warrant, to arrest a person if instructed to do so by another

police officer (the instructing officer).

(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply unless—

(a) the instructing officer reasonably suspects the person

has committed or is committing an offence; and

(b) the arrest of the person is reasonably necessary for 1 or

more of the reasons mentioned in section 365(1) or the

reason mentioned in section 365(2);