tidy up references
|
tidy up references
|
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
'''Reasonable and probable grounds''' is most prominent in the law that regulates police officers, as the precondition behind the exercise of certain powers in their function as enforcers of law.{{sfn|Brown et al. |
'''Reasonable and probable grounds''' is most prominent in the law that regulates police officers, as the precondition behind the exercise of certain powers in their function as enforcers of law.{{sfn|Brown et al. ''Criminal Laws''|page=482}} Constructed from the Australian [[common law]], it is a prerequisite to most police powers including arresting without a warrant,<ref name="NSW LE(P&R) s99">{{cite Legislation AU|NSW|act|leara2002451|Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002|99}}.</ref> searching without a warrant,<ref name="NSW LE(P&R) s21">{{cite Legislation AU|NSW|act|leara2002451|Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002|21}}.</ref> requesting disclosure of identity,<ref name="Sanders 2018">{{cite web|first=Jane|last=Sanders |publisher=Legal Aid NSW |title=Police powers of arrest and detention |date=February 2018 |url=https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/28543/Police-powers-of-arrest-and-detention-Feb-2018.pdf |accessdate=22 January 2020 |ref=CITEREFSanders "Police powers of arrest" (2018)}}</ref> and for investigating terrorist activity.{{sfn|Gray (2011)|pages=57-59}} In Canada, it is defined as the point where probability replaces suspicion based on a reasonable belief. Reasonableness construes as a legitimate expectation in the existence of specific facts. The belief in individual circumstances can be "reasonable without being probable."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Reasonable_and_Probable_Grounds|title=Reasonable and Probable Grounds - Criminal Law Notebook|website=criminalnotebook.ca|access-date=2019-10-14}}</ref> In Australia, it is less clearly defined. It depends on the circumstances of the case, rather than the reasonable and probable grounds in itself. Often it involves a practical assessment of the circumstances of a potential crime. |
||
In the scope of the law, there is an overarching [[doctrine]] of reasonableness. It is derived from the hypothetical legal [[reasonable person]], a standard by which the law is explained to the 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, by virtue of the fact that it is separately accounted for in the law, distinct from the reasonable person and the [[Rule of reason|test of reason]]. There are explicit references to 'reasonable and probable grounds' in common law judgments,{{sfn|Brown et al. |
In the scope of the law, there is an overarching [[doctrine]] of reasonableness. It is derived from the hypothetical legal [[reasonable person]], a standard by which the law is explained to the 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, by virtue of the fact that it is separately accounted for in the law, distinct from the reasonable person and the [[Rule of reason|test of reason]]. There are explicit references to 'reasonable and probable grounds' in common law judgments,{{sfn|Brown et al. ''Criminal Laws''|pages=445-446}} and in statutory authorities,<ref name="Sanders 2018"/> across both State and Federal [[jurisdiction]]. |
||
The concept of reasonable and probable grounds was introduced to the [[Law of Australia|Australian legal system]] at the turn of the 21st century. This continues to develop further in Australian law. However, inconsistencies about what is reasonable and probable to a person remain. |
The concept of reasonable and probable grounds was introduced to the [[Law of Australia|Australian legal system]] at the turn of the 21st century. This continues to develop further in Australian law. However, inconsistencies about what is reasonable and probable to a person remain. |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
== Development in the Common Law == |
== Development in the Common Law == |
||
[[File:Balanced scale of Justice.svg|thumb|Balanced scale of Justice]] |
[[File:Balanced scale of Justice.svg|thumb|Balanced scale of Justice]] |
||
In Australian law, reasonable and probable grounds have evolved from common law judgments. [[Judicial discretion]] is the guiding principle as to how these judgments evolve. In every light, the judiciary construes the issues with reasonable and probable grounds towards balancing the scale of justice.{{sfn|Brown et al. |
In Australian law, reasonable and probable grounds have evolved from common law judgments. [[Judicial discretion]] is the guiding principle as to how these judgments evolve. In every light, the judiciary construes the issues with reasonable and probable grounds towards balancing the scale of justice.{{sfn|Brown et al. ''Criminal Laws''|pages=444-450}} |
||
In the common law, there are two principles that must be developed, at the least, to form the reasonable and probable grounds necessary to act on certain powers.<ref |
In the common law, there are two principles that must be developed, at the least, to form the reasonable and probable grounds necessary to act on certain powers.<ref name="Sanders 2018"/> These principles are reasonable suspicion and what is reasonably necessary.{{sfn|Brown et al. ''Criminal Laws''|page=482}} Along with other considerations relevant to the circumstances of the case, the foundations of reasonable and probable grounds can be observed. |
||
=== Reasonable Suspicion === |
=== Reasonable Suspicion === |
||
One avenue by which this has occurred is through the abstract development of [[reasonable suspicion]] |
One avenue by which this has occurred is through the abstract development of [[reasonable suspicion]],{{sfn|Skolnik (2016)|pages=231-232}} which is the legal standard that must be met before police officers can exercise certain powers.<ref name="Sanders 2018"/><ref>{{cite AustLII|NSWCCA|540|2001|litigants=R v Rondo}}.</ref> Reasonable suspicion is based on the information of the mind of the police officer at the time the power is actioned. It involves less than a reasonable belief, but more than a possibility. Additionally, it is not an arbitrary exercise of power.<ref name="Sanders 2018"/> |
||
This has been reaffirmed in the common law since the 20th century.{{sfn|Gray (2011)|page=54}} Take, for example, the development of reasonable suspicion as one of the bases to forming the reasonable and probable grounds to exercise the police power of search and arrest, as well as other discretionary powers.<ref> |
This has been reaffirmed in the common law since the 20th century.{{sfn|Gray (2011)|page=54}} Take, for example, the development of reasonable suspicion as one of the bases to forming the reasonable and probable grounds to exercise the police power of search and arrest, as well as other discretionary powers.<ref name="Sanders 2017">{{cite web|first=Jane|last=Sanders |publisher=Legal Aid NSW |title=Police powers to search and seize mobile phones |date=August 2017 |url=https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/27513/Jane-Sanders-Police-powers-to-search-and-seize-mobile-phones.pdf |accessdate=22 January 2020 |ref=CITEREFSanders "Police powers to search mobile phones" (2017)}}</ref><ref>{{cite AustLII|NSWDC|126|2011|litigants=R v Beekman}}.</ref> |
||
There are ten propositions as to how a person forms reasonable suspicion as a state of mind.<ref |
There are ten propositions as to how a person forms reasonable suspicion as a state of mind.<ref name="Sanders 2018"/><ref name="Hyder">{{cite AustLII|NSWCA|336|2012|litigants=Hyder v Commonwealth of Australia}}</ref> These are formed in the preliminary stage of the investigation, and it is objectively determined by the court whether the grounds for reasonable suspicion have been met. These propositions include: |
||
* Facts sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person. |
* Facts sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person. |
||
* A belief formed by the person arresting. |
* A belief formed by the person arresting. |
||
* Accountability of the arresting police officer. |
* Accountability of the arresting police officer. |
||
* A factual basis for suspicion. |
* A factual basis for suspicion. |
||
* Objective circumstances that point clearly to the belief. |
* Objective circumstances that point clearly to the belief. |
||
* An inclination of the mind assenting to a belief, rather than rejecting. |
* An inclination of the mind assenting to a belief, rather than rejecting. |
||
* What was known and reasonably capable of being known at the relevant time. |
* What was known and reasonably capable of being known at the relevant time. |
||
* A belief that can be based on external information, but it cannot be directive. |
* A belief that can be based on external information, but it cannot be directive. |
||
* Sources used to form a belief must be identifiable to the Court. |
* Sources used to form a belief must be identifiable to the Court. |
||
* The executive discretion of police officers to arrest can only be questioned if the validity of the decision to arrest was not effectively exercised.<ref>Hyder v |
* The executive discretion of police officers to arrest can only be questioned if the validity of the decision to arrest was not effectively exercised.<ref name="Hyder [15]">{{cite AustLII|NSWCA|336|2012|litigants=Hyder v Commonwealth of Australia|pinpoint=[15]}}</ref> |
||
===Reasonably Necessary=== |
===Reasonably Necessary=== |
||
What constitutes reasonable and probable grounds in the common law has also divulged from that what is reasonably necessary, and this is an unfettered judgment on all grounds. |
What constitutes reasonable and probable grounds in the common law has also divulged from that what is reasonably necessary, and this is an unfettered judgment on all grounds. What is reasonably necessary is confined to an obligation that develops in the mind of the police officer to undertake an act that gives effect to the relevant police power.<ref name="Sanders 2017"/><ref>{{cite AustLII|NSWStRp|22|1933|litigants=Clarke v Bailey |parallelcite=(1933)33[[State Reports (New South Wales)|SR (NSW)]] 303}}.</ref> |
||
== Development in Statute == |
== Development in Statute == |
||
In [[Australia]], police, on reasonable and probable grounds, are capable of exercising discretionary powers, including arrests, searches, requests for identity and for investigating terrorist activity. These powers are conferred on the relevant legislation that regulate the general police officers, such as the ''Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002'' for New South Wales,<ref> |
In [[Australia]], police, on reasonable and probable grounds, are capable of exercising discretionary powers, including arrests, searches, requests for identity and for investigating terrorist activity. These powers are conferred on the relevant legislation that regulate the general police officers, such as the ''Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002'' for New South Wales,<ref name="NSW LE(P&R)">{{cite Legislation AU|NSW|act|leara2002451|Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002}}.</ref> or those that regulate specific powers such as the ''Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002'' (NSW).<ref name="NSW Terror">{{cite Legislation AU|NSW|act|tpa2002291|Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002}}.</ref> Importantly, regardless of the type of police power, there is an undying importance of reasonable grounds as the only substantial doctrine by which police officers can function as law enforcers.<ref name="Sanders 2018"/> |
||
=== Arrest without a Warrant === |
=== Arrest without a Warrant === |
||
Under the legislation, police have the power to arrest, without a warrant, on reasonable and probable grounds.<ref>LexisNexis, Halsbury’s Laws of Australia, (online at 5 February 2015) 320 Police and Emergency Services, ‘2 Functions and Powers of Police’ [235]-[400].</ref> In Australia, this is preserved by statutory reforms which create a standard by which police can exercise an arrest without a warrant.<ref |
Under the legislation, police have the power to arrest, without a warrant, on reasonable and probable grounds.<ref>LexisNexis, Halsbury’s Laws of Australia, (online at 5 February 2015) 320 Police and Emergency Services, ‘2 Functions and Powers of Police’ [235]-[400].</ref> In Australia, this is preserved by statutory reforms which create a standard by which police can exercise an arrest without a warrant.<ref name="Sanders 2018"/> This can be found under s 99 of the ''Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act'' 2002 (NSW).<ref name="NSW LE(P&R) s99"/> Reasonable grounds for exercising such an arrest involves what is reasonably necessary for the relevant situation.<ref name="Sanders 2018"/> This is an objective test by which police officers must be satisfied that an arrest is the best conceivable option.<ref name="Griffith 2013">{{citation |first=Gareth |last=Griffith |title=Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Amendment (Arrest without Warrant) Bill 2013 |url=https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/law-enforcement-powers-and-responsibilities-amen/Arrest%20without%20warrant.pdf |series=Research Paper No 4 |publisher=Parliamentary Library Research Service |year=2013 |ref=CITEREFGriffith "Arrest without Warrant" (2013)}}</ref> |
||
However, the common law requires that this power is to be exercised only as a last resort, where it is necessary to deprive the freedom of the individual.{{sfn|Brown et al. |
However, the common law requires that this power is to be exercised only as a last resort, where it is necessary to deprive the freedom of the individual.{{sfn|Brown et al. ''Criminal Laws''|page=439}} |
||
=== Search without a Warrant === |
=== Search without a Warrant === |
||
Similar to the powers of arrest, police can search, without a warrant, any person, vehicle and premises, on reasonable and probable grounds. These grounds do not specifically require that what is reasonably necessary, however, it is implied under common law.<ref |
Similar to the powers of arrest, police can search, without a warrant, any person, vehicle and premises, on reasonable and probable grounds. These grounds do not specifically require that what is reasonably necessary, however, it is implied under common law.<ref name="Sanders 2017"/> This power is preserved by s 21 of the ''Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act'' (NSW).<ref name="NSW LE(P&R) s21"/> 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.<ref name="Griffith 2001">{{citation |first=Gareth |last=Griffith |title=Police Powers in NSW: Background to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Bill 2001 |url=https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/police-powers-in-nsw-background-to-the-law-enfor/11-01.pdf |series=Research Paper No 11 |publisher=Parliamentary Library Research Service |year=2001 |ref=CITEREFGriffith "Police Powers in NSW" (2001)}}</ref> |
||
=== Disclosure of Identity === |
=== Disclosure of Identity === |
||
Within the boundaries of reasonable grounds, the police are afforded the power to require a person to disclose their identity if the person is capable of assisting the police in their investigations of alleged indictable offences.{{sfn|Brown et al. |
Within the boundaries of reasonable grounds, the police are afforded the power to require a person to disclose their identity if the person is capable of assisting the police in their investigations of alleged indictable offences.{{sfn|Brown et al. ''Criminal Laws''|page=448}} There is also an implied power in the common law to verify someone's identity in circumstances where police can request this information.<ref name="Sanders 2018"/> This power, whilst not as contentious as arresting or searching without a warrant, is still subject to the confines of reasonable and probable grounds so that fundamental human rights to privacy and dignity are not impinged upon.{{sfn|Brown et al. ''Criminal Laws''|page=482}} |
||
=== Investigating Terrorist Activity === |
=== Investigating Terrorist Activity === |
||
A more recent development in the scope of reasonable and probable grounds is the addition of special powers by police officers to investigate terrorist activity, investigate conduct, and to authorize certain processes relevant to preventing terrorist acts, on the basis of reasonable and probable grounds. This is authorized by the ''Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002'' (NSW) in the State jurisdiction and the ''Australian Federal Police Act 1979'' (Cth) in the Federal jurisdiction.<ref |
A more recent development in the scope of reasonable and probable grounds is the addition of special powers by police officers to investigate terrorist activity, investigate conduct, and to authorize certain processes relevant to preventing terrorist acts, on the basis of reasonable and probable grounds. This is authorized by the ''Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002'' (NSW) in the State jurisdiction and the ''Australian Federal Police Act 1979'' (Cth) in the Federal jurisdiction.<ref name="NSW Terror"/><ref>''Australian Federal Police Act 1979'' (Cth).</ref> This specifically identifies the police powers that can be exercised, such as requiring disclosure of identity, searching a person, vehicle or premises, seizing and detaining things, and use force, in any situation in which a terrorist act has occurred or could occur.{{sfn|Gray (2011)|pages=57-59}} |
||
== Evaluation of Use in the Legal System == |
== Evaluation of Use in the Legal System == |
||
On the whole spectrum, reasonable and probable grounds is based on tests of objectivity, incorporating rationality and proportionality.<ref |
On the whole spectrum, reasonable and probable grounds is based on tests of objectivity, incorporating rationality and proportionality.<ref name="Griffith 2013"/> The role of the police officer in exercising police powers is to ensure that the relevant reasonable and probable grounds exist to justify the exercise of power.{{sfn|Brown et al. ''Criminal Laws''|page=445}} This remains a pertinent issue to the practicality of reasonable and probable grounds as it is open to interpretation, depending on the person exercising the power.{{sfn|Skolnik (2016)|page=223}} Furthermore, there are some cases that indicate elements of non-justiciability of the regulation of the existence of such grounds when police officers exercise power, beyond the broad boundaries as defined by legislation.{{sfn|Brown et al. ''Criminal Laws''|page=436}} |
||
The most contentious powers of police officers, including arresting and searching a person, involve those that directly concern fundamental human rights such as the right to liberty and privacy.{{sfn|Gray (2011)|page=58}} An incorrect presumption by police officers as to the existence of reasonable and probable grounds for the exercise of power poses a risk that fundamental human rights, as aforementioned, are encroached upon, or wholly violated.{{sfn|Gray (2011)|page=59}} For example, the [[death of Beto Laudisio]], or better known as the 'Roberto Curti Inquest', involved inappropriate and disproportionate use of force in the police officers' exercise of power to arrest Curti. The legitimacy and legality of the reasonable and probable grounds to use force in an attempt to arrest Curti was undermined by irrationality and poor assessment of the situation.<ref>Paul Bibby |
The most contentious powers of police officers, including arresting and searching a person, involve those that directly concern fundamental human rights such as the right to liberty and privacy.{{sfn|Gray (2011)|page=58}} An incorrect presumption by police officers as to the existence of reasonable and probable grounds for the exercise of power poses a risk that fundamental human rights, as aforementioned, are encroached upon, or wholly violated.{{sfn|Gray (2011)|page=59}} For example, the [[death of Beto Laudisio]], or better known as the 'Roberto Curti Inquest', involved inappropriate and disproportionate use of force in the police officers' exercise of power to arrest Curti. The legitimacy and legality of the reasonable and probable grounds to use force in an attempt to arrest Curti was undermined by irrationality and poor assessment of the situation.<ref name="Bibby 2014">{{cite news |first=Paul |last=Bibby |title=Police used 'excessive, unnecessary, unlawful' force on Brazilian student Roberto Curti, court hears |newspaper=Sydney Morning Herald |date=17 November 2014 |url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/police-used-excessive-unnecessary-unlawful-force-on-brazilian-student-roberto-curti-court-hears-20141117-11o3tr.html}}</ref> Similarly, the arrest of a disability pensioner in Melbourne as reported by the [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]], where 6 police officers tackled the one man and arrested him, is another demonstration of police brutality and the misjudgment that may occur when exercising reasonable and probable grounds.<ref name="Knight 2018">{{cite news |first=Ben |last=Knight |title=Melbourne police captured on video taking down disability pensioner |publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation |date=3 April 2018 |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-03/melbourne-police-on-video-taking-down-disability-pensioner/9591006}}</ref> |
||
Legislation has undergone significant reform in an attempt to clarify the boundaries of reasonable and probable grounds. The most prominent of these reforms was in 2013, which narrowed the grounds of reasonableness and probability with a twofold test by which police officers must satisfy before exercising an arrest.<ref |
Legislation has undergone significant reform in an attempt to clarify the boundaries of reasonable and probable grounds. The most prominent of these reforms was in 2013, which narrowed the grounds of reasonableness and probability with a twofold test by which police officers must satisfy before exercising an arrest.<ref name="Griffith 2013"/> The reform set out the criteria that must be satisfied before exercising an arrest without a warrant.<ref name="Sentas & McMahon">{{citation |first1=Vicki |last1=Sentas |first2=Rebecca |last2=McMahon |last-author-amp=y |title=Changes to the police power of arrest |url=http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CICrimJust/2014/4.pdf}} (2014) 25(3) ''Current Issues in Criminal Justice'' 785.</ref> As a matter of discretion, police officers may arrest a person if they suspect on the reasonable grounds that an offence may be or has been committed.<ref name="Sanders 2018"/> Secondly, as a matter of criminal deterrence, police officers must also 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.<ref name="Sentas & McMahon"/> |
||
With respect to powers relating to terrorism, there have been criticisms of the statutory use of reasonable grounds, because of the arbitrary abuse of this ground to justify undue searches and detentions of persons in public places at risk of ‘large-scale public disorder’.{{sfn|Gray (2011)|pages=57-59}} This is primarily as a result of the inconsistent interpretations of what reasonable grounds constitutes, and the manifestation of such different interpretations.{{sfn|Gray (2011)|pages=57-59}} In 2017 and 2018, terrorism laws underwent reform as to the extent and scope of police powers to better enable police to prevent terrorism.<ref>Chloe Booker |
With respect to powers relating to terrorism, there have been criticisms of the statutory use of reasonable grounds, because of the arbitrary abuse of this ground to justify undue searches and detentions of persons in public places at risk of ‘large-scale public disorder’.{{sfn|Gray (2011)|pages=57-59}} This is primarily as a result of the inconsistent interpretations of what reasonable grounds constitutes, and the manifestation of such different interpretations.{{sfn|Gray (2011)|pages=57-59}} In 2017 and 2018, terrorism laws underwent reform as to the extent and scope of police powers to better enable police to prevent terrorism.<ref name="Booker 2019">{{cite news |first=Chloe |last=Booker |title=Terror laws: Suspects, children to be locked up without a warrant |newspaper=The Age |date=31 May 2019 |url=https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/new-terror-laws-suspects-children-to-be-locked-up-without-a-warrant-20181001-p5076n.html}}</ref> However, there are concerns that the introduction of 'extraordinary' police powers broadens the scope of reason to exercise power to a degree that is not proportionate to the possibility of an offence.{{sfn|Gray (2011)|pages=70}} For example, a person, even without a criminal record, can be arrested and detained for up to four days.<ref name="Booker 2019"/> |
||
== Comparison to Other Legal Systems == |
== Comparison to Other Legal Systems == |
||
Parallel to the Canadian system of law, reasonable grounds are distinguished in the law as an articulated standard by which police can lawfully arrest, and search a person. |
Parallel to the Canadian system of law, reasonable grounds are distinguished in the law as an articulated standard by which police can lawfully arrest, and search a person. In Canada, however, it is explicitly clear in statute, that this standard has both objective and subjective reasoning behind it.{{sfn|Skolnik (2016)|page=233}} In Australia, it is unclear as to the extent of the subjectivity of reasonable grounds. In a more practical sense, the Canadian system of police powers, on reasonable and probable grounds, is more clearly defined, with specific reference to the reliability of a tip from an informer that is reporting a crime, in that it is not sufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds.<ref>''R v Garofoli'' (1990) 2 SCR 1421.</ref> In Australia, however, it depends on the circumstances of the case, rather than the reasonable and probable grounds in itself.<ref name="Sanders 2018"/> |
||
In comparison to the United States of America, the doctrine of [[probable cause]] is what governs the exercise of police powers, and is argued as different from reasonableness because it prevents random and unnecessary searches.{{Citation needed|date=January 2020}} This is reaffirmed in the [[Constitution of the United States|United States Constitution]], pursuant to the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]].{{Citation needed|date=January 2020}} This can be directly contrasted to the Australian system of law in which the powers of police officers are subject to legislative amendments and common law developments when new issues arise for police officers when exercising police powers, which is not as enduring or substantive as constitutional law, such as the United States of America's, provides. |
In comparison to the United States of America, the doctrine of [[probable cause]] is what governs the exercise of police powers, and is argued as different from reasonableness because it prevents random and unnecessary searches.{{Citation needed|date=January 2020}} This is reaffirmed in the [[Constitution of the United States|United States Constitution]], pursuant to the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]].{{Citation needed|date=January 2020}} This can be directly contrasted to the Australian system of law in which the powers of police officers are subject to legislative amendments and common law developments when new issues arise for police officers when exercising police powers, which is not as enduring or substantive as constitutional law, such as the United States of America's, provides.{{sfn|Brown et al. ''Criminal Laws''|page=438}} |
||
== References == |
== References == |
||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
* {{citation |first=Anthony |last=Gray |title=The rule of law and reasonable suspicion |ref=CITEREFGray (2011)}} (2011) 16(2) ''Australian Journal of Human Rights'' 53. {{doi|10.1080/1323238X.2011.11910888}} |
* {{citation |first=Anthony |last=Gray |title=The rule of law and reasonable suspicion |ref=CITEREFGray (2011)}} (2011) 16(2) ''Australian Journal of Human Rights'' 53. {{doi|10.1080/1323238X.2011.11910888}} |
||
⚫ | * {{cite book |first1=David |last1=Brown |first2=David |last2=Farrier |first3=Luke |last3=McNamara |first4=Alex |last4=Steel |first5=Michael |last5=Grewcocket |lastauthoramp=yes |title=Criminal Laws: Materials and commentary on criminal law and process in NSW |publisher=Federation Press |edition=6th |year=2015 |isbn=9781862879843 |ref=CITEREFBrown et al. ''Criminal Laws''}} |
||
*{{cite news |first=Ben |last=Knight |title=Melbourne police captured on video taking down disability pensioner |publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation |date=3 April 2018 |accessdate=4 January 2020 |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-03/melbourne-police-on-video-taking-down-disability-pensioner/9591006 |ref=harv<sub></sub>}} |
|||
*Chloe Booker, 'Terror laws: Suspects, children to be locked up without a warrant', The Age (online, 31 May 2019). <<nowiki>https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/new-terror-laws-suspects-children-to-be-locked-up-without-a-warrant-20181001-p5076n.html</nowiki>> |
|||
⚫ |
* {{cite book |first1=David |last1=Brown |first2=David |last2=Farrier |first3=Luke |last3=McNamara |first4=Alex |last4=Steel |first5=Michael |last5=Grewcocket |lastauthoramp=yes |title=Criminal Laws: Materials and commentary on criminal law and process in NSW |publisher=Federation Press |edition=6th |year=2015 |isbn=9781862879843 |ref=CITEREFBrown et al. |
||
* Gareth Griffith, ‘Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Amendment (Arrest without Warrant) Bill 2013, (Research Paper No 4, Parliamentary Library Research Service, Parliament of NSW, 2013). |
|||
* Gareth Griffith, 'Police Powers in NSW: Background to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Bill 2001', (Research Paper No 11, Parliamentary Library Research Service, Parliament of NSW, 2001). |
|||
* {{cite AustLII|NSWCA|336|2012|litigants=Hyder v Commonwealth of Australia}}. |
|||
* Jane Sanders, Legal Aid NSW, ‘Police powers of arrest and detention’ (February 2018). |
|||
* Jane Sanders, Legal Aid NSW, ‘Police powers to search and seize mobile phones’ (August 2017). |
|||
*''Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002'' (NSW). |
|||
* LexisNexis, ''Halsbury’s Laws of Australia,'' (online at 5 February 2015) 320 Police and Emergency Services, ‘2 Functions and Powers of Police’ [235]-[400]. |
* LexisNexis, ''Halsbury’s Laws of Australia,'' (online at 5 February 2015) 320 Police and Emergency Services, ‘2 Functions and Powers of Police’ [235]-[400]. |
||
⚫ | * {{cite web |first=Terry |last=Skolnik |title=The Suspicious Distinction between Reasonable Suspicion and Reasonable Grounds to Believe |url=https://ssrn.com/abstract=2782237 |ref=CITEREFSkolnik (2016)}}’ (2016) 47(1) ''[[Ottawa Law Review]]'' 223-249. |
||
* Paul Bibby, 'Police used 'excessive, unnecessary, unlawful' force on Brazilian student Roberto Curti, court hears', Sydney Morning Herald (online, 17 November 2014). |
|||
⚫ |
* Terry Skolnik |
||
*''Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002'' (NSW). |
|||
*Vicki Sentas and Rebecca McMahon, ‘Changes to the police power of arrest' (2014) 25(3) ''Current Issues in Criminal Justice'' 785. |
|||
{{Navbox |
{{Navbox |
![]() |
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Reasonable and probable grounds is most prominent in the law that regulates police officers, as the precondition behind the exercise of certain powers in their function as enforcers of law.[1] Constructed from the Australian common law, it is a prerequisite to most police powers including arresting without a warrant,[2] searching without a warrant,[3] requesting disclosure of identity,[4] and for investigating terrorist activity.[5] In Canada, it is defined as the point where probability replaces suspicion based on a reasonable belief. Reasonableness construes as a legitimate expectation in the existence of specific facts. The belief in individual circumstances can be "reasonable without being probable."[6] In Australia, it is less clearly defined. It depends on the circumstances of the case, rather than the reasonable and probable grounds in itself. Often it involves a practical assessment of the circumstances of a potential crime.
In the scope of the law, there is an overarching doctrine of reasonableness. It is derived from the hypothetical legal reasonable person, a standard by which the law is explained to the 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, by virtue of the fact that it is separately accounted for in the law, distinct from the reasonable person and the test of reason. There are explicit references to 'reasonable and probable grounds' in common law judgments,[7] and in statutory authorities,[4] across both State and Federal jurisdiction.
The concept of reasonable and probable grounds was introduced to the Australian legal system at the turn of the 21st century. This continues to develop further in Australian law. However, inconsistencies about what is reasonable and probable to a person remain.
In Australian law, reasonable and probable grounds have evolved from common law judgments. Judicial discretion is the guiding principle as to how these judgments evolve. In every light, the judiciary construes the issues with reasonable and probable grounds towards balancing the scale of justice.[8]
In the common law, there are two principles that must be developed, at the least, to form the reasonable and probable grounds necessary to act on certain powers.[4] These principles are reasonable suspicion and what is reasonably necessary.[1] Along with other considerations relevant to the circumstances of the case, the foundations of reasonable and probable grounds can be observed.
One avenue by which this has occurred is through the abstract development of reasonable suspicion,[9] which is the legal standard that must be met before police officers can exercise certain powers.[4][10] Reasonable suspicion is based on the information of the mind of the police officer at the time the power is actioned. It involves less than a reasonable belief, but more than a possibility. Additionally, it is not an arbitrary exercise of power.[4]
This has been reaffirmed in the common law since the 20th century.[11] Take, for example, the development of reasonable suspicion as one of the bases to forming the reasonable and probable grounds to exercise the police power of search and arrest, as well as other discretionary powers.[12][13]
There are ten propositions as to how a person forms reasonable suspicion as a state of mind.[4][14] These are formed in the preliminary stage of the investigation, and it is objectively determined by the court whether the grounds for reasonable suspicion have been met. These propositions include:
What constitutes reasonable and probable grounds in the common law has also divulged from that what is reasonably necessary, and this is an unfettered judgment on all grounds. What is reasonably necessary is confined to an obligation that develops in the mind of the police officer to undertake an act that gives effect to the relevant police power.[12][16]
InAustralia, police, on reasonable and probable grounds, are capable of exercising discretionary powers, including arrests, searches, requests for identity and for investigating terrorist activity. These powers are conferred on the relevant legislation that regulate the general police officers, such as the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 for New South Wales,[17] or those that regulate specific powers such as the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 (NSW).[18] Importantly, regardless of the type of police power, there is an undying importance of reasonable grounds as the only substantial doctrine by which police officers can function as law enforcers.[4]
Under the legislation, police have the power to arrest, without a warrant, on reasonable and probable grounds.[19] In Australia, this is preserved by statutory reforms which create a standard by which police can exercise an arrest without a warrant.[4] This can be found under s 99 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW).[2] Reasonable grounds for exercising such an arrest involves what is reasonably necessary for the relevant situation.[4] This is an objective test by which police officers must be satisfied that an arrest is the best conceivable option.[20]
However, the common law requires that this power is to be exercised only as a last resort, where it is necessary to deprive the freedom of the individual.[21]
Similar to the powers of arrest, police can search, without a warrant, any person, vehicle and premises, on reasonable and probable grounds. These grounds do not specifically require that what is reasonably necessary, however, it is implied under common law.[12] This power is preserved by s 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]
Within the boundaries of reasonable grounds, the police are afforded the power to require a person to disclose their identity if the person is capable of assisting the police in their investigations of 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, whilst not as contentious as arresting or searching without a warrant, is still subject to the confines of reasonable and probable grounds so that fundamental human rights to privacy and dignity are not impinged upon.[1]
A more recent development in the scope of reasonable and probable grounds is the addition of special powers by police officers to investigate terrorist activity, investigate conduct, and to authorize certain processes relevant to preventing terrorist acts, on the basis of reasonable and probable grounds. This is authorized by the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 (NSW) in the State jurisdiction and the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth) in the Federal jurisdiction.[18][24] This specifically identifies the police powers that can be exercised, such as requiring disclosure of identity, searching a person, vehicle or premises, seizing and detaining things, and use force, in any situation in which a terrorist act has occurred or could occur.[5]
On the whole spectrum, reasonable and probable grounds is based on tests of objectivity, incorporating rationality and proportionality.[20] The role of the police officer in exercising police powers is to ensure that the relevant reasonable and probable grounds exist to justify the exercise of power.[25] This remains a pertinent issue to the practicality of reasonable and probable grounds as it is open to interpretation, depending on the person exercising the power.[26] Furthermore, there are some cases that indicate elements of non-justiciability of the regulation of the existence of such grounds when police officers exercise power, beyond the broad boundaries as defined by legislation.[27]
The most contentious powers of police officers, including arresting and searching a person, involve those that directly concern fundamental human rights such as the right to liberty and privacy.[28] An incorrect presumption by police officers as to the existence of reasonable and probable grounds for the exercise of power poses a risk that fundamental human rights, as aforementioned, are encroached upon, or wholly violated.[29] For example, the death of Beto Laudisio, or better known as the 'Roberto Curti Inquest', involved inappropriate and disproportionate use of force in the police officers' exercise of power to arrest Curti. The legitimacy and legality of the reasonable and probable grounds to use force in an attempt to arrest Curti was undermined by irrationality and poor assessment of the situation.[30] Similarly, the arrest of a disability pensioner in Melbourne as reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, where 6 police officers tackled the one man and arrested him, is another demonstration of police brutality and the misjudgment that may occur when exercising reasonable and probable grounds.[31]
Legislation has undergone significant reform in an attempt to clarify the boundaries of reasonable and probable grounds. The most prominent of these reforms was in 2013, which narrowed the grounds of reasonableness and probability with a twofold test by which police officers must satisfy before exercising an arrest.[20] The reform set out the criteria that must be satisfied before exercising an arrest without a warrant.[32] As a matter of discretion, police officers may arrest a person if they suspect on the reasonable grounds that an offence may be or has been committed.[4] Secondly, as a matter of criminal deterrence, police officers must also 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]
With respect to powers relating to terrorism, there have been criticisms of the statutory use of reasonable grounds, because of the arbitrary abuse of this ground to justify undue searches and detentions of persons in public places at risk of ‘large-scale public disorder’.[5] This is primarily as a result of the inconsistent interpretations of what reasonable grounds constitutes, and the manifestation of such different interpretations.[5] In 2017 and 2018, terrorism laws underwent reform as to the extent and scope of police powers to better enable police to prevent terrorism.[33] However, there are concerns that the introduction of 'extraordinary' police powers broadens the scope of reason to exercise power to a degree that is not proportionate to the possibility of an offence.[34] For example, a person, even without a criminal record, can be arrested and detained for up to four days.[33]
Parallel to the Canadian system of law, reasonable grounds are distinguished in the law as an articulated standard by which police can lawfully arrest, and search a person. In Canada, however, it is explicitly clear in statute, that this standard has both objective and subjective reasoning behind it.[35] In Australia, it is unclear as to the extent of the subjectivity of reasonable grounds. In a more practical sense, the Canadian system of police powers, on reasonable and probable grounds, is more clearly defined, with specific reference to the reliability of a tip from an informer that is reporting a crime, in that it is not sufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds.[36] In Australia, however, it depends on the circumstances of the case, rather than the reasonable and probable grounds in itself.[4]
In comparison to the United States of America, the doctrine of probable cause is what governs the exercise of police powers, and is argued as different from reasonableness because it prevents random and unnecessary searches.[citation needed] This is reaffirmed in the United States Constitution, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment.[citation needed] This can be directly contrasted to the Australian system of law in which the powers of police officers are subject to legislative amendments and common law developments when new issues arise for police officers when exercising police powers, which is not as enduring or substantive as constitutional law, such as the United States of America's, provides.[37]
{{citation}}
: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (help) (2014) 25(3) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 785.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (help)Named doctrines of law | Reasonable person • Rule of reason • Jurisdiction • Common law • Judicial discretion • Reasonable suspicion • Probable cause |
---|---|
Named sources of law | |
Named examples | |
Other |