Reasonable and probable grounds in Australia

Last updated

In Australian criminal law, reasonable and probable grounds most prominently regulates police officers as a precondition of the exercise of certain powers in their function as enforcers of the law. [1] Based on Australian common law, it is a prerequisite of most police powers (including arresting without a warrant, [2] searching without a warrant, [3] requesting disclosure of identity, [4] and investigating terrorist activity). [5] In Canada, it is defined as the point where probability replaces suspicion based on a reasonable belief; reasonableness is a legitimate expectation in the existence of specific facts, and the belief in individual circumstances can be "reasonable without being probable." [6] Less-clearly defined in Australia, it depends on the circumstances of a case and often involves an assessment of the circumstances of a potential crime.

Contents

Law has an overarching doctrine of reasonableness. It is derived from a hypothetical reasonable person, a standard by which a law is explained to a jury. The reasonable person, and reasonableness itself, extends to the concept of reasonable and probable grounds as a justification for the exercise of power (or discretion). Reasonable and probable grounds differ from that of the reasonable person and the test of reason. Some state and federal common-law judgments [7] and statutory authorities explicitly refer to "reasonable and probable grounds". [4] The concept, introduced to the Australian legal system at the turn of the 21st century, is evolving and sometimes inconsistent.

Development in common law

The scales of justice Balanced scale of Justice.svg
The scales of justice

Reasonable and probable grounds have evolved from common-law judgments, employing judicial discretion to make a balanced ruling. [8] Two principles guide the reasonable and probable grounds necessary to act on certain powers: [4] reasonable suspicion and reasonable necessity. [1]

Reasonable suspicion

Reasonable suspicion, [9] the legal standard which must be met before police officers can exercise certain powers, [4] [10] is based on information in the mind of the police officer at the time a power is wielded. Less than a reasonable belief, it is more than a possibility. It is not arbitrary. [4] Australia is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that specifies the protection from arbitrary arrest and detention by the Article 9 making the multi-nation agreement domestic law in Australia.

The concept has been reaffirmed in the common law since the 20th century, [11] and is one of the bases of reasonable and probable grounds to exercise the police powers of search and arrest and other discretionary powers. [12] [13] There are ten propositions of how a person may have a reasonable suspicion [4] [14] in the preliminary stage of an investigation, and the court determines whether the grounds for reasonable suspicion exist. The propositions are:

  1. Sufficient facts to induce suspicion in a reasonable person
  2. Belief formed by the arresting person
  3. Accountability of the arresting officer
  4. A factual basis for suspicion
  5. Objective circumstances pointing clearly to the belief
  6. A mental inclination to assent to (rather than reject) a belief
  7. What was known and reasonably able to be known at the relevant time
  8. A belief that can be based on external information, but cannot be directive
  9. Sources used to form a belief must be identifiable to the court
  10. The executive discretion of police officers to arrest can only be questioned if the validity of the decision to arrest was not effectively exercised. [15]

Reasonable necessity

What constitutes reasonable and probable grounds in the common law is revealed from what is reasonably necessary: an obligation which develops in the mind of a police officer to wield the relevant police power. [12] [16]

Statutory development

Police, on reasonable and probable grounds, can exercise discretionary powers including arrest, searches, requests for identity and investigating terrorist activity. These powers are conferred with legislation regulating police officers (such as the Law Enforcement [Powers and Responsibilities] Act 2002 for New South Wales) [17] or regulating specific powers, such as the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 (also NSW). [18] Regardless of the type of police power, reasonable grounds is the only doctrine with which police officers can function as law enforcers. [4]

Arrest without a warrant

Police have the power to arrest, without a warrant, on reasonable and probable grounds. [19] This is preserved by statutory reforms, creating a legal standard [4] in section 99 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW). [2] Reasonable grounds for making such an arrest involves what is reasonably necessary for the relevant situation, [4] an objective test by which police officers must be satisfied that an arrest is the best conceivable option. [20] The common law requires that this power be exercised only as a last resort, where it is necessary to deprive an individual of freedom. [21]

Search without a warrant

Similar to the power of arrest, police can search a person, vehicle or premises without a warrant on reasonable and probable grounds. Although the grounds do not specifically require reasonable necessity, it is implied by common law. [12] This power is preserved by section 21 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (NSW). [3] The reasonable grounds by which a police officer exercises the search of a person, vehicle or premises is legitimized for the purposes of discovering (and preserving) evidence. [22]

Disclosure of identity

With reasonable grounds, police have the power to require a person to disclose their identity if the person can assist them in investigating alleged indictable offences. [23] There is also an implied power in the common law to verify someone's identity in circumstances where police can request this information. [4] This power, less contentious than arresting or searching without a warrant, is subject to reasonable and probable grounds to protect the human rights to privacy and dignity. [1]

Investigating terrorist activity

A recent expansion in the scope of reasonable and probable grounds is the addition of police powers to investigate terrorist activity and authorize processes to prevent terrorist acts. This is authorized by the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 (NSW) at the state level and the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth) at the commonwealth (federal) level, [18] [24] which identify police powers (such as requiring disclosure of identity, searching a person, vehicle or premises, seizing and detaining evidence, and the use of force) which can be exercised in any situation where a terrorist act has occurred or could occur. [5]

Reasonable and probable grounds is generally based on tests of objectivity, incorporating rationality and proportionality. [20] The role of an officer in exercising police powers is to ensure that relevant reasonable and probable grounds exist to justify the exercise of power. [25] Its practicality is an issue, since it is open to interpretation and depends on the person exercising the power. [26] [27]

The most contentious powers of police officers, arrest and search, involve human rights such as the right to liberty and privacy. [28] An incorrect presumption by police officers of reasonable and probable grounds for the exercise of power risks the encroachment or violation of those rights. [29] The death of Beto Laudisio involved inappropriate, disproportionate use of force in the police officers' arrest Roberto Curti. The legitimacy and legality of the reasonable and probable grounds to use force in the attempt to arrest Curti was undermined by irrationality and poor assessment of the situation. [30] The arrest of a disability pensioner in Melbourne was reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; six police officers tackled and arrested the man in a demonstration of police brutality and the misjudgment which may occur in the exercise of reasonable and probable grounds. [31]

Legislation has been reformed in an attempt to clarify the boundaries of reasonable and probable grounds. The most prominent reform, in 2013, narrowed the grounds of reasonableness and probability with a twofold test which police officers must satisfy before making an arrest without a warrant. [20] [32] Police officers may arrest a person if they suspect, on reasonable grounds, that an offence may be (or has been) committed. [4] Officers must be satisfied that the arrest is reasonably necessary to prevent the commission of another offence, to protect the victims, witnesses and community, and to ensure that the offence is dealt with properly and justly. [32]

The use of reasonable grounds with respect to terrorism has been criticized because of its arbitrary abuse to justify undue searches and detentions of persons in public places at risk of "large-scale public disorder". [5] This is primarily the result of inconsistent interpretations of reasonable grounds. [5] In 2017 and 2018, terrorism laws were reformed in the extent and scope of police powers to improve protection. [33] Concerns exist, however, that the introduction of "extraordinary" police powers broadens the scope of reason to exercise power to a degree disproportionate to the possibility of an offence; [34] a person without a criminal record, for example, can be arrested and detained for up to four days. [33]

As in Canada, reasonable grounds are articulated in the law as a standard by which police can lawfully arrest and search a person. In Canada, this standard has both objective and subjective reasoning behind it; [35] in Australia, however, the extent of the subjectivity of reasonable grounds is unclear. The Canadian system of police powers on reasonable and probable grounds is more clearly defined; a tip from an informer reporting a crime is insufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds. [36] In Australia it depends on the circumstances of the case, rather than on the reasonable and probable grounds itself. [4]

In the United States, the doctrine of probable cause governs the exercise of police powers and is argued as differing from reasonableness in preventing random and unnecessary searches. This is reaffirmed in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and differs from Australian legislative amendments and common law. [37]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.

An arrest warrant is a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate on behalf of the state which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual or the search and seizure of an individual's property.

In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal or the issuing of a search warrant. There is no universally accepted definition or formulation for probable cause. One traditional definition, which comes from the U.S. Supreme Court's 1964 decision Beck v. Ohio, is when "whether at [the moment of arrest] the facts and circumstances within [an officer's] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient to warrant a prudent [person] in believing that [a suspect] had committed or was committing an offense."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arrest</span> Law enforcement action

An arrest is the act of apprehending and taking a person into custody, usually because the person has been suspected of or observed committing a crime. After being taken into custody, the person can be questioned further and/or charged. An arrest is a procedure in a criminal justice system, sometimes it is also done after a court warrant for the arrest.

A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a private citizen – that is, a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Search and seizure</span> Police powers

Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems by which police or other authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has been committed, commence a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to the crime.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that it is constitutional for American police to "stop and frisk" a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime. Specifically, the decision held that a police officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures when questioning someone even though the officer lacks probable cause to arrest the person, so long as the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. The court also ruled that the police officer may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is "armed and presently dangerous." This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts," and not merely upon an officer's hunch.

In criminal procedure law of the United States, an exigent circumstance allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, allows them to enter without knocking and waiting for the owner's permission to enter. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect's escape is imminent. Once entry is obtained, the plain view doctrine applies, allowing the seizure of any evidence or contraband discovered in the course of actions consequent upon the exigent circumstances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law enforcement in Australia</span> Overview of law enforcement in Australia

Law enforcement in Australia is one of the three major components of the country's justice system, along with courts and corrections. Law enforcement officers are employed by all three levels of government – federal, state/territory, and local.

False arrest, unlawful arrest or wrongful arrest is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges they were held in custody without probable cause, or without an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Although it is possible to sue law enforcement officials for false arrest, the usual defendants in such cases are private security firms.

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'"; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts", and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual. If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained is armed and dangerous, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. However, if the police develop probable cause during a weapons frisk, they may then conduct a full search. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.

An immigration officer is a law enforcement official whose job is to ensure that immigration legislation is enforced. This can cover the rules of entry for visa applicants, foreign nationals or those seeking asylum at the border, detecting and apprehending those that have breached the border and removing them, or pursuing those in breach of immigration and criminal laws.

A law enforcement agency (LEA) has powers, which other government subjects do not, to enable the LEA to undertake its responsibilities. These powers are generally in one of six forms:

Civilian enforcement officers (CEOs) are either employees or authorised officers of His Majesty's Courts & Tribunals Service and are responsible for enforcing magistrates' court orders. They can seize and sell goods to recover money owed under a fine and community penalty notice. They also execute, in England and Wales, warrants of arrest, committal, detention and distraint. Members of approved enforcement agencies have the same powers as civilian enforcement officers, but are employed by private companies. Both are referred to as 'authorised officers' in law.

<i>R v Kang-Brown</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Kang-Brown, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456, 2008 SCC 18, is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure. The Court found that police do not have the right to perform a sniffer-dog search of public spaces when such search is not specifically authorized by statute. In this case, a suspect's section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") were violated when a police officer stopped him at a bus station and sniffer-dog searched his bag finding drugs in his possession.

The powers of the police in Scotland, as with much of Scots law, are based on mixed elements of statute law and common law.

The powers of the police in England and Wales are defined largely by statute law, with the main sources of power being the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Police Act 1996. This article covers the powers of police officers of territorial police forces only, but a police officer in one of the UK's special police forces can utilise extended jurisdiction powers outside of their normal jurisdiction in certain defined situations as set out in statute. In law, police powers are given to constables. All police officers in England and Wales are "constables" in law whatever their rank. Certain police powers are also available to a limited extent to police community support officers and other non warranted positions such as police civilian investigators or designated detention officers employed by some police forces even though they are not constables.

An arrest without warrant or a warrantless arrest is an arrest of an individual without the use of an arrest warrant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002</span> 2002 Act of the Parliament of New South Wales

The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002(NSW) is an Act of the Parliament of New South Wales which governs the exercise of specific police powers in New South Wales. It

References

  1. 1 2 3 Brown et al. Criminal Laws, p. 482.
  2. 1 2 Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) s 99.
  3. 1 2 Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) s 21.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sanders, Jane (February 2018). "Police powers of arrest and detention" (PDF). Legal Aid NSW. Retrieved 22 January 2020.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Gray (2011), pp. 57–59.
  6. ↑ "Reasonable and Probable Grounds - Criminal Law Notebook". criminalnotebook.ca. Retrieved 14 October 2019.
  7. ↑ Brown et al. Criminal Laws, pp. 445–446.
  8. ↑ Brown et al. Criminal Laws, pp. 444–450.
  9. ↑ Skolnik (2016), pp. 231–232.
  10. ↑ R v Rondo [2001] NSWCCA 540.
  11. ↑ Gray (2011), p. 54.
  12. 1 2 3 Sanders, Jane (August 2017). "Police powers to search and seize mobile phones" (PDF). Legal Aid NSW. Retrieved 22 January 2020.
  13. ↑ R v Beekman [2011] NSWDC 126.
  14. ↑ Hyder v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] NSWCA 336
  15. ↑ Hyder v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] NSWCA 336 at [15]
  16. ↑ Clarke v Bailey [1933] NSWStRp 22 , (1933) 33 SR (NSW) 303.
  17. ↑ Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW).
  18. 1 2 Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 (NSW).
  19. ↑ LexisNexis, Halsbury’s Laws of Australia, (online at 5 February 2015) 320 Police and Emergency Services, "2 Functions and Powers of Police" [235]-[400].
  20. 1 2 3 Griffith, Gareth (2013), Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Amendment (Arrest without Warrant) Bill 2013 (PDF), Research Paper No 4, Parliamentary Library Research Service
  21. ↑ Brown et al. Criminal Laws, p. 439.
  22. ↑ Griffith, Gareth (2001), Police Powers in NSW: Background to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Bill 2001 (PDF), Research Paper No 11, Parliamentary Library Research Service
  23. ↑ Brown et al. Criminal Laws, p. 448.
  24. ↑ Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth).
  25. ↑ Brown et al. Criminal Laws, p. 445.
  26. ↑ Skolnik (2016), p. 223.
  27. ↑ Brown et al. Criminal Laws, p. 436.
  28. ↑ Gray (2011), p. 58.
  29. ↑ Gray (2011), p. 59.
  30. ↑ Bibby, Paul (17 November 2014). "Police used 'excessive, unnecessary, unlawful' force on Brazilian student Roberto Curti, court hears". Sydney Morning Herald.
  31. ↑ Knight, Ben (3 April 2018). "Melbourne police captured on video taking down disability pensioner". Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
  32. 1 2 Sentas, Vicki & McMahon, Rebecca, Changes to the police power of arrest (PDF) (2014) 25(3) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 785.
  33. 1 2 Booker, Chloe (31 May 2019). "Terror laws: Suspects, children to be locked up without a warrant". The Age.
  34. ↑ Gray (2011), pp. 70.
  35. ↑ Skolnik (2016), p. 233.
  36. ↑ R v Garofoli (1990) 2 SCR 1421.
  37. ↑ Brown et al. Criminal Laws, p. 438.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.