Analysis of Criminal Law Case: Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer

This article provides an analysis of the Criminal Law case Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer, which discusses the required mental element for the offence of offensive behavior under the Summary Offences Act, 1953. The article covers the issue in the case, relevant legislation, previous decisions, and the conclusion reached by Doyle, CJ. The subject is Criminal Law, and the course code and college/university are not mentioned.

Running Head: CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note

1CRIMINAL LAW
A) What was the issue in this case? [2 marks]
The issue in this case is the determination of the mental element which has to be established
by the prosecution to obtain a conviction for the alleged statutory offence of a offensive behavior
contrary to the provisions of s7[1] of the Summary Offences Act, 1953["the Act"]. The court has
to analyze in the case that whether the mental element which is required for the commission of
an offence is implied in the case or it is not present, as the parliament does not have the intention
of creating an offence which does not have a requirement of Mens rea or guilty mind1.
b] What had the High Court said in He Kaw Teh v The Queen that was relevant to this
issue? [4 marks]
It had been stated in the case of He Kaw Teh v The Queen [1985] 157 CLR 523 by
Brennan J [at 565] that when an offence is created or defined by the statue be referring only to its
external elements, the mental element is generally held to be impliedly present in the meaning.
The mental element in context is of a guilty mind or mens rea2,
c] What did Doyle, CJ say in this case had to be determined for the prosecution to know
what it had to prove for the defendant to be found guilty of the offence? [4 marks]
Doyel CJ said that the issue was specifically whether the prosecutors had the duty to
provide that the defendant intentionally gave the offence or had knowledge that his actions
would likely result in giving the offence or whether the prosecutors must only prove that the
defendant did not reasonably and honestly believed that his actions would not result n an offence.
The significant thing in the latter event is that the reasonableness in relation to the belief of the
defendant that his conduct would not result in giving the offence will be an element of offence.
In a addition he said that in order to decided the issue which has been presented, it is mandatory
to give importance to the provisions of the statue, the actual subject matter which in context, the
issues which may arise when adopting any alternative views and the reason for which the
parliament may have considered in taking the latter approach.
d] What had happened in the previous proceedings of this case? [3 marks]
The magistrate court dismissed the complaint in relation to the defendant behaving in an
offensive manner. When an appeal had been made to the single judge of the court, the judge took
into consideration the judgment of the magistrate judge who found the action to be offensive,
however he rejected the complaint based on the fact that the standard or evidence which is
required [beyond reasonable doubt] had not been satisfied in relation to the issue that the
1 Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer [1997] 68 SASR 285 [at 1]
2 He Kaw Teh v The Queen [1985] 157 CLR 523 by Brennan J [at 565]

2CRIMINAL LAW
defendant intended to cause harm. Although the reason of the magistrates where not clear in the
report the interpretation of the judge of the decision was correct. When in the course of the
argument it had been conceded by the prosecutor that, where the prosecutors would have been
able to get the main issue in their favor they would not have been asked to remit the case in the
lower court for further proceedings. The question that whether the magistrate had founded in fact
the actions to be offensive and whether it was a correct finding was not pursued by the
defendant. In the previous proceeding the single judge of the court had a view that it was
mandatory for the prosecutor to show that the defendant had the intention of acting in a manner
which is considered offensive. The conclusion had been reached by the judge reluctantly by
taking into consideration the view that as it has been decided so by the judges in earlier cases he
should also have the same decision. He may have also taken the view that intention was not a
requirement for the establishment of an offence as such a view had also been taken by earlier
cases in the court3.
e] What had a single judge of the Supreme Court ‘reluctantly’ decided before it came to the
Full Supreme Court and what would that single judge prefer to have decided? [1 mark]
The judge reluctantly decided that it was mandatory for the prosecutor to show that the
defendant had the intention of acting in a manner which is considered offensive He would have
preferred to decided that intention was not a requirement for the establishment of an offence as
such a view had also been taken by earlier cases in the court4.
f] What were the facts in this case? [2 marks]
In this case the defendant was wearing a t-shirt at about 11.15am in the Elizabeth City
Shopping Mall. There were about 2000-3000 people of all age in the mall as it was busy as found
by the magistrate. The t-shirt had a uniform dark color. There was a printed picture on the front
of the t-shirt of band members. The name of the band Dead Kennedys was no difficult to read.
The T-shirt also has words written on it which read “Too Drunk To Fuck" which were also easily
readable. The evidence which had been provided by the defendant is that the words have been
adopted from Dead Kennedy’s song. Evidence had been provided by the defendant that the T-
shirt had been gifted to him by his mother pursuant to his 19th Birthday which took place shortly
before the mall incident. It was stated by the defendant that he wore the T-shirt because he liked
Dead Kennedys and did not have any intention of offending anyone. The T-shirt had been worn
by him before and he did not know about any adverse action5.
g] What was the relevant legislation and what offence did it specify? [3 marks]
3 Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer [1997] 68 SASR 285 [at 11-14]
4 Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer [1997] 68 SASR 285 [at 14]
5 Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer [1997] 68 SASR 285 [at 15-17]

3CRIMINAL LAW
The relevant legislation in the case is Summary Offences Act, 1953. It specifies that an
individual, who in a police station or public place behaves in an offensive or disorderly manner,
indulges in a fight with others or uses language which is offensive, is guilty of an offence6.
h] What did Doyle, CJ say would not be surprising about Parliament’s intention with
respect to the guilty mind required and why? [2 marks]
It was stated by Doyel CJ that it would not be surprising to say that the parliament has the
intention of punishing someone who did not know that what he was doing is offensive in nature.
Further the judge held that it would not be surprising to say that the parliament does this in order
to protecting sensibility of average members in the community7.
i] What did Doyle, CJ say was not surprising about the argument advanced by the
defendant in this case and why? [1 mark]
It was stated by Doyel CJ that it would not be surprising that the defendant would only be
guilty if it can be proved that the he possessed intention of offending or the knowledge that his
actions would offend others8.
j] What did previous decisions say about the guilty mind required to commit the offence?
[8 marks]
In the case of Densley v Merton [1943] SASR 144, Napier CJ had the view that in order
to obtain a conviction it is not be provided mandatorily that the defendant had an intention to
offend or the knowledge that his actions would result into an offence. Similar view had been
taken in the case of Normandale v Brassey [1970] SASR 177 by Wells J. It had been noted by
him [at 179] that provisions have been made to restrict conduct which is offensive depending
upon the situation or inherently, which has the capacity of being offensive from affecting
community members adversely. It had been noted by him that provisions direct the attention of a
person to the character or quality of the conduct in question or at times the outcome of the
conduct. It had been noted that on certain occasions the conduct is only punishable if it is
deliberate and willful. The judge had a view that the defendant was not guilty if his actions were
a result of mistakes entertained by him on considerable grounds9.
Further it had been stated by the court in the case of Ellis v Fingleton [1972] 3 SASR 437
that proof of intention was not required in relation to the fact that it is going to offend others10.
6 Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer [1997] 68 SASR 285 [at 18]
7 Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer [1997] 68 SASR 285 [at 26]
8 Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer [1997] 68 SASR 285 [at 27]
9 Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer [1997] 68 SASR 285 [at 29]
10 Ellis v Fingleton [1972] 3 SASR 437

4CRIMINAL LAW
In the case of Stone v Ford [1993] 59 SASR 444 the defendant had been charged for behaving in
a manner which is offensive in a public place11. In this case the judge made references in relation
to precedent cases which suggested that it is not necessary to show intention for a conduct to be
offensive. However he held the view that the person who has been charged of an offense must
not be punished if intention to offend was not found on his part. However the judge in the
present case stated that the case of Pregelj v Manison [1987] 51 NTR 1 was not useful at all in
relation to the present case as it had dealt with a charge in relation to a summary offence12. Thus
it can be stated from the analysis of the above cases that previous decisions say in relation to
guilty mind required to commit the offence that until intention to offend is proved the defendant
cannot be held guilty of an offence13.
k] What did Doyle, CJ conclude was the required state of mind to commit the offence of
behaving in an offensive manner and how did he reach that conclusion? [10 marks]
In the given situation it has been concluded by Doyle, CJ that if it can be provided that
the action in context is in the required sense offensive, the person who has been charged with the
conduct would be held liable for offence if it can be provided by the prosecutor that the
defendant did not reasonably or honestly believe that the action did not constitute an offensive
conduct. He stated that the presumption which states that knowledge or intention is a mandatory
element of the offence can and should be rebutted in the above discussed situation. He further
stated that if the complaint had been dismissed by the magistrate based on the finding that
intention or knowledge of offence had not been proved, than there was an error on part of the
magistrate. Thus the appeal had been dismissed by the court14. In order to reach the conclusion
the court CJ took into consideration the provisions of the legislation as well as the ruling in
precedent cases. He referred to the case of He Kaw Teh v The Queen where it had been stated
by Brennan J [at 567] that the issue is related to statutory interpretation. The presumptions which
are used by the courts are a result of customary common law provisions. It is presumed that the
parliament only legislates in accordance to such principles as that part of the system. The only
fact that the express process of establishing a guilty mind is not provided by the parliament does
not have any specific significance. This is because there is a presumption made by the parliament
that the person would only be convicted if intention is identified. The judge in this case made it
clear that as the issue in context is of implications or presumptions it is open for the purpose of a
rebuttal. It has been left by the parliament to the court to make a decision based on cases in
relation the element required for a provision which has not identified a mental element15. As in
the given situation based on the earlier cases and latter cases the position was unclear Doyle CJ
decided to precede based of assumption that rebuttal of presumption for knowledge or intent as
requirements of the offence is in the issue. The judge took into consideration the outcome of
11 Stone v Ford [1993] 59 SASR 444
12 Pregelj v Manison [1987] 51 NTR 1
13 Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer [1997] 68 SASR 285 [at 30-34]
14 Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer [1997] 68 SASR 285 [at 55]
15 Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer [1997] 68 SASR 285 [at 37-42]

5CRIMINAL LAW
taking into account that knowledge or intent is not required to be provided. He stated that most
people in the country have an idea that what are the generally accepted standards of behaviour in
the society. Thus they must ensure that offence is not conducted towards others by their actions.
Thus only those people who have an unreasonable belief that their conduct would not be
regarded as offensive have to be punished in relation to their conduct rather than those who
honestly and reasonably believed that their conduct would not offend others. In the light of the
above consideration which inclined the judge towards the view that neither knowledge nor intent
has to be provided the judge moved towards the object of the provisions. The judge found that
the provisions had the intention of protecting the members of the society from annoyance and
disturbance from such behaviour. Thus to hold guilty those people who knowingly or
intentionally offend is a good prospect however does not go to the additional step through which
members are required to ensure that they do not violate standards which are generally accepted16.
On such reasons the chief justice reached the decision.
16 Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer [1997] 68 SASR 285 [at 51-54]

6CRIMINAL LAW
Bibliography
Ellis v Fingleton [1972] 3 SASR 437
He Kaw Teh v The Queen [1985] 157 CLR 523 by Brennan J [at 565]
Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer [1997] 68 SASR 285 [at 1]
Pregelj v Manison [1987] 51 NTR 1
Stone v Ford [1993] 59 SASR 444