Hindering Police Charge?

In the case of Stachor v Police ^1 2 , the defendant was charged with hindering a member of the police force in the execution of their duty. The defendant had acted in an aggressive and abusive manner towards the police officers, making it difficult for them to control him. The court found that this conduct constituted hindering police. This case demonstrates that aggressive and abusive behaviour towards police officers can be considered as hindering police.

In another case cited in  HCA 2007 11, the court considered a situation where the defendant had fled from police after being stopped. The court noted that this conduct could potentially constitute hindering police, as it could be seen as an attempt to delay or impede the police officers in the execution of their duty.

In the case of Gaston v Police ^4 5 , the defendant was stopped by police and asked to produce his driver’s licence. He drove off, and the police took the registration number of the car. He pleaded guilty to offences of driving under disqualification, failing to give information, and hinder police. The court noted that hindering involves any form of interference or obstruction which makes the duty of a police officer substantially more difficult of performance.

A person hinders police who warns offenders of the approach of police even though he or she does not physically obstruct the police such as Lenthall v Curran.

Aany active interference or obstruction which makes the duty of the police officer substantially more difficult of performance is hindering.

In one case it was alleged that the accused took hold of the police officer’s jacket when the officer was endeavouring to assist another officer then in the course of arresting another person during a melee, saying to the officer ‘leave him alone, he’s done nothing’.

The officer desisted from his attempt to assist with the arrest of the suspect and pushed the accused away before returning to his task.

The accused may argue that they did not know that the person they were hindering was a police officer, or that they did not intend to hinder the officer in the execution of their duty.

The accused may argue that they had a lawful excuse or justification for their actions. For example, they may argue that they were acting in self-defence or in defence of another person.

The accused may argue that they were acting under necessity or duress, meaning that they were forced to hinder the police officer due to circumstances beyond their control. This defence would require the accused to prove that they had no reasonable alternative but to hinder the police officer.

This is the actual act of obstructing or interfering with a police officer. It can take various forms, including both physical and non-physical acts. Physical acts can include resisting arrest or physically obstructing an officer, while non-physical acts can include providing false information or failing to comply with a lawful direction given by an officer.

The act of hindrance must interfere with a police officer in the execution of their duty. This means that the police officer must be performing their official duties at the time of the hindrance.

The offender must know that the person they are hindering is a police officer, and they must intend to hinder that officer in the execution of their duty. This element is often inferred from the circumstances of the case.

The act of hindrance must make the duty of the police officer substantially more difficult to perform. This means that the hindrance must have a real and significant impact on the officer’s ability to perform their duty.

Merely asking a police officer questions or seeking clarification about your rights or the situation at hand would not typically be considered hindering.

Exercising your legal rights, such as the right to remain silent or the right to legal representation, would not be considered hindering (although, there are certain questions that you are required to answer by law, failing which you will be charged with a further offence).

These are fundamental rights that are protected by law and exercising them does not obstruct or interfere with a police officer’s duty.

Passive non-compliance, such as going limp when being arrested, is generally not considered hindering.

However, if the passive non-compliance significantly obstructs or interferes with a police officer’s duty, it could potentially be considered hindering.

If a person is merely present at the scene where a police officer is executing their duty and does not interfere in any way, this would not constitute hindering.

For example, observing a police officer making an arrest from a reasonable distance without interfering would not be considered hindering.

Participating in a lawful protest or demonstration, even if it involves criticism of the police, would not typically be considered hindering police.