ACT Criminal Law
National Criminal Law
NSW Criminal Law
QLD Criminal Law
VIC Criminal Law
WA Criminal Law
My legal matter concerning an application for a Domestic Violence Order was managed by Mr Thomas Allen. I am grateful for the outcome he obtained. Without Mr Allen and his ongoing support, I would be certain of a different result. It has been an extremely stressful period. Mr Allen’s astute ability to liaise on my behalf and his expertise was invaluable and for which I am grateful as I am now able to move forward. Thanking you
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Armstrong Legal and specifically Mr Thomas Allen for representing me in my recent case. At the outset, I would like to thank Mr Allen for the very professional delivery of his legal service. From the first time that I met Mr Allen, I was very impressed with his demeanour and delivery as he made me feel at ease knowing the severity of my case. Mr Allen not only gave me the possible positive outcomes of the case but also the realisation of the worst-case scenario as far as sentencing goes. … I will certainly be recommending Armstrong Legal to any of my friends or family needing representation in criminal matters. Thank you so very much.
Thank you for your representation and help. Fingers crossed for the next step and parole. I just want to say that from the first phone call to your office, your service has been outstanding and have put my mind at ease. I am glad I picked your number to ring.
Thank you Armstrong Legal, the lawyers that have helped over the past 3 years but more importantly, thank you to Thomas Allen for the major part you and Mr Buckland played. Cannot thank you enough. Cheers.
Hi all. I would like to thank Ms Lisa Riley for all her help with my legal issues this past month. It was the most harrowing experience of my life and thanks to her expertise, professionalism and knowledge of the law, I came out almost unscathed. I have no hesitation in recommending Lisa Riley and Armstrong Legal if you need help. The service is amazing and the cost was very minimal for the great outcome. Thank you Lisa for helping me in the most difficult time.
I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. My whole life I was thrown away, you made me feel like I did mean something. I could not have asked for a better lawyer. Your compassion and love for your job is inspiring. Your upfront and honesty were muchly appreciated, you are a beautiful person. Thank you for not giving up on me and thank you for all the work you put in. I wish you all the best for the future and I will be recommending you to everyone I know. You're amazing!!!!
I just wanted to thank you for representing me on Monday, I was overjoyed & relieved with the outcome. I don’t think it could have gone any better. All the best, I hope you got to celebrate this one instead after work, you forever made a difference in my life.
I know I thanked you before we parted company but please allow me to reiterate in writing my sincere deepest thanks for defending me in court today. … Armstrong Legal certainly has a great Lawyer you are a credit to the company and I'm quite sure you will secure a very successful future! … My Kindest Regards and Thanks
Throughout Angela has been the consummate professional. She maintained a calm, yet strong demeanour remained informative and completely open in her communication and took complete ownership of the situation. We felt confident we finally had an advocate to steer us out of the nightmare we were in, and she did so with great respect and sincerity. I cannot speak more highly of Angela. She has literally rescued our family from what looked very much like a hopeless future.
Words can’t describe how grateful I am to Trudie Cameron being my solicitor and to Andrew Tiedt presenting my case in the court. They both have been very supportive and amazingly professional and effective. I’ve got an absolutely fantastic outcome I couldn’t even dream about.
Soon after meeting Andrew I knew he was the solicitor I wanted to handle my matter. He immediately sprang into action which brought me stability and hope during a tumultuous time in my life. Andrew was never afraid to give me straight answers to my tough questions which is a true mark of integrity. He is clearly at ease in the court environment and I believe his calm and measured demeanour went a long way to helping me secure the best result from my day in court. I would certainly recommend you approach Andrew if you need assistance.
"Andrew Tiedt was very professional and considerate to personal circumstances and gave sound advice that resulted in the best outcome possible. Highly recommended."
What is a Reasonable Cause? (ACT)
A recent judgment from Justice Loukas-Karlsson in the ACT Supreme Court deals with the need for police to have reasonable cause to interfere with a person’s liberty. A citizen’s liberty is exceedingly important, not just for the individual citizen, but for our whole community. No-one should be held in custody or detained unless all the procedures have been complied with and their rights respected. In the ACT those rights are enshrined in a Human Rights Act 2004, which has as its primary source the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The 2021 decision of Tran v Stapleton overturned the conviction of a Canberra woman on a drug-driving charge because she was wrongfully detained by police. Among other things, the court ruled that the sighting of a car outside a house associated with drug use was not “reasonable cause” to stop the vehicle and submit the driver to a drug test.
Tran v Stapleton  ACTSC 1
The defendant in this matter was pulled over by plainclothes police in an unmarked police vehicle. She was originally charged with two counts of drug trafficking and one of drug possession as well as drug driving.
A Magistrate dismissed the first three charges, ruling that an admission and subsequent evidence obtained during a search of the car were inadmissible as evidence because they had been illegally or improperly obtained (s138, Evidence Act).
That ruling, however, did not extend to the evidence in relation to the drug-driving.
The woman contested the police assertion that her manner of driving provided reasonable cause to detain her, and to require her to remain on the roadside for an extended period, to allow a drug test to be carried out.
She contended that the results of that drug test were inadmissible against her as they had been unlawfully or improperly obtained, not only because the police had acted improperly but particularly because they did not have the requisite reasonable cause to stop her in relation to drug driving.
It was contended for the driver that one of the policemen told her of generic powers that had no direct application to her particular circumstance. This was done to obtain her consent for a search of her vehicle and the policeman’s actions had tainted the validity of that consent. Further, she was not cautioned before questioning.
Material inconsistencies between the two policemen’s evidence were raised: one said the car was in one lane, one said it was in the other; one said the car was veering and crossing lanes toward the median strip, the other only that it was not always “strictly within its lane”.
The police tried to contend that they had been merely conducting a traffic stop, but they had not asked the woman about her manner of driving, a normal part of a traffic stop for drug-driving.
Justice Loukas-Karlsson found that the Magistrate’s rejection of the woman’s evidence was “contrary to compelling inferences”.
“It is appropriate for the police officers’ evidence in relation to the manner of driving to be assessed in the context of both the material inconsistencies and in the context of other adverse conduct, on the day in question and otherwise …” Her Honour found. “I do not accept, having considered all the evidence, in light of the authorities [previous judgments] discussed … that the car driven by the appellant was driven in the manner given in evidence by the police officers.”
What are reasonable grounds?
The High Court case of George v Rockett ((1990) 170 CLR 104) was drawn on considerably in Justice Loukas-Karlsson’s judgment. That case held that “reasonable grounds” requires “the existence of facts which are sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person”.
The view must be formed by the arresting officer, and not on the “bald assertion” of another police officer. Such accountability was “the compromise between the values of individual liberty and public order”.
Whether a person had reasonable grounds for forming a suspicion or a belief is to be determined not according to their subjective beliefs at the time but according to an objective criterion.
Arguments made by the defence on appeal
The Appellant submitted that police did not have reasonable cause to suspect that she had, at the relevant time, a drug in her system. Therefore, it was submitted that the direction for her to remain on the road side for 30 minutes was a form of unlawful detention and, as a consequence, the oral fluid analysis was taken illegally and should be excluded from evidence.
In support of this, a number of inconsistencies in police evidence were noted, including particularly that one policeman said that the other one had told him that the lady’s car had been parked “at an address … that was known by police to be associated with drug activity”. However, under cross-examination, that other policeman said there had been no reference to such an address and he “expressed no knowledge of any connection between the car and the …. address”.
Arguments made by the prosecution
In written submissions, the prosecution submitted that a combination of circumstances – observing the car leaving a known drug-associated property and the manner of driving – were considerations that “rationally could bear upon the issue of whether a person may be driving with a drug in their system”.
Potential breaches of the Human Rights Act
The Judge said, “I do not accept that the car driven by the Appellant was driven in the manner given in evidence by the police officers. In my view, [the arresting officer] did not have reasonable cause to suspect that the Appellant had a drug in her body.”
The Judge noted especially the provision of the Evidence Act (s138(3)(f)), which demands consideration of whether the impropriety of what police did was contrary to or inconsistent with a right of a person recognised by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
She quoted Article 9.1 of the Covenant which says, “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.”
Her Honour declared that the contravention in the instant case “raises potential breaches” of the ACT’s Human Rights Act, specifically s13, which deals with freedom of movement, and s18, which concentrates on the right to liberty and security of person.
The final words were: “The appeal is upheld on all grounds. The finding of guilt is overturned. Noting that, in the absence of the roadside drug screening test results and oral fluid analysis, the Prosecution has no evidence to offer on the charge, the charge is dismissed.”
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter please contact Armstrong Legal.
The ACT Coroners Court recently examined in detail the Australian Federal Police’s use of a taser – and found overwhelmingly…
Police in the Australian Capital Territory have powers to search a person and property under the Crimes Act 1900. Search…
When exercising police powers, an officer must comply with some basic principles and ensure you have been provided with your…
201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000
575 Bourke Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
91 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000
Nishi, 2 Phillip Law Street
Canberra ACT 2601
22 St Georges Terrace Perth