Criminal Law Assignment: Analysis of Legal Procedures and Rights

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of a criminal law case involving an arrest at a festival. The primary issues examined include the validity of the arrest, the prospects of bail for the accused, the legality of the police search, the procedures followed during questioning, and the lawfulness of installing cameras in the accused's home. The report applies relevant legal principles from the Bail Act 1977, the Crimes Act (Cth) 1914, the Control of Weapons Act (Vic) 1990, the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act (Vic) 1981, the Evidence Act 2008, and the Privacy Act 1988, along with case law such as Hyder v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] NSWCA 336 and R v Naa (2009). The analysis considers whether the police had the authority to conduct a search, if the questioning procedures were violated, and if the surveillance was lawful. The report concludes on the validity of the arrest, bail prospects, the legality of the search, procedural violations in questioning, and the lawfulness of the camera installation, offering a detailed legal perspective on the case.

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CRIMINAL LAW
Issue
The primary issues are as follows:-
 Whether the arrest made by the police at the festival can be considered to be valid.
 What may be the prospects of Jane attaining bail?
 Whether the police had the power and the authority to conduct a search on Jane.
 Whether the police violated any procedures during the questioning of Jane.
 Whether the installation of cameras in the house of Jane can be considered to be lawful.
Rule
Section 4 as provided in the Bail Act of the year 1977 states that when any individual is
accused of any particular offence, and when that particular individual is detained in custody in
connection to that specific offence, then in such a situation the individual shall have the
entitlement to the grant of bail, unless the decision maker in relation to the bail is mandated to
reject the bail by this particular Act.
Section 8 as provided in the aforementioned Act states that the decision maker regarding
the bail, should conduct inquiries in relation to the accused, as the decision maker considers
necessary. No examination or cross-examination in connection to the accused shall be conducted
by the decision maker of the bail regarding the offence with which he is charged.
The case of Hyder v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] NSWCA 336 shall be
considered to be a significant case in this regard. In this case, the court deliberated the state and
the condition of the mind, which shall be essential for any particular ‘Federal Police officer’ to
have sensible and rational grounds on which an arrest may be made as per section 3W as

2CRIMINAL LAW
mentioned in the Crimes Act (Cth) of the year 1914. The section mentioned above forwards that
an enforcement officer shall be able to make an arrest of an individual, without a warrant, if it is
believed by the enforcement officer on rational and sensible grounds that the individual has
committed or shall be committing any particular offence.
The Control of Weapons Act (Vic) of the year 1990 and the Drugs, Poisons and
Controlled Substances Act (Vic) of the year 1981 are significant legislations in this regard. The
legislations mentioned above discuss that how an enforcement officer should conduct private
search upon individuals. According to the aforementioned Acts, it may be said that under certain
circumstances, the enforcement officers shall have the authority to do a private search on
individuals, without any kind of warrant, in any public location. If it is reasonably believed by an
enforcement officer that an individual possess illegal drugs or other harmful items, or if an
individual is discovered in a location where vehement crime is prevailing, or if an individual is
discovered in a designated location, or if any individual who is over fourteen years carries tools
or instruments for the purposes of graffiti and is located in public transport, then a private search
may be conducted by the officer.
Section 139 as provided in the Evidence Act of the year 2008 states that an individual,
who has been detained and who may be questioned by an investigating officer, must be
cautioned by that particular officer. As per the aforementioned section, the investigating officer
should have the adequate authority to question the individual who has been arrested and
detained. As per the aforementioned section, if an investigating officer fails to caution the
individual who has been arrested, in a reasonable manner, then it may be said that any statement
made or any action performed by that individual, during the course of questioning, cannot be

3CRIMINAL LAW
regarded as evidence. It may be said that such statement or action of the individual has been
extracted in an inadequate manner, by the investigating officer.
In spite of the broadening of the term ‘official questioning’ to the term ‘questioning’,
in the case of R v Naa (2009) 76 NSWLR 271; [2009] NSWSC 851, it had been stated by Howie
J that the term 'questioning' shall not be extended to a general discussion or conversation.
The Privacy Act of the year 1988 states that any government agency or organization may
collect private information in relation to an individual for investigating purposes with the help of
a surveillance device. However, such collection of information must be in conformity to the
‘Australian Privacy Principles’. It must be made sure by a government agency or an organization
that before the recording is done, the individual is informed regarding the cameras. It must also
be ensured by such agency or organization that the private information of the individual is
secured or destroyed when not required anymore.
Application
In the given scenario, Jane, a previous offender relating to drug offences had been tackled
by police and she was put on the ground. A ‘pat down’ search was conducted by police and also
searched the handbag of Jane. A large knife and bear mace was recovered from her handbag.
Afterwards the police asked questions to Jane. She was not allowed to contact anybody and the
questioning went on for ten hours.
Section 4 as provided in the Bail Act of the year 1977 shall be applied in the given
scenario. It states that when any individual is accused of any particular offence, and when that
particular individual is detained in custody in connection to that specific offence, then in such a
situation the individual shall have the entitlement to the grant of bail, unless the decision maker

4CRIMINAL LAW
in relation to the bail is mandated to reject the bail by this particular Act. Therefore, it may be
said that Jane shall be entitled to avail bail.
Section 8 as provided in Bail Act shall be applied in the given scenario. It states that the
decision maker regarding the bail, should conduct inquiries in relation to the accused, as the
decision maker considers necessary. No examination or cross-examination in connection to the
accused shall be conducted by the decision maker of the bail regarding the offence with which he
is charged. Hence, inquiries should be conducted in a similar manner in the given scenario.
Applying the case of Hyder v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] NSWCA 336, it may
be said that in the given scenario, as per section 3W as mentioned in the Crimes Act (Cth) of the
year 1914, the enforcement officer shall be able to make an arrest of Jane, without a warrant, if it
is believed by the enforcement officer on rational and sensible grounds that Jane has committed
or shall be committing any particular offence.
Applying the Control of Weapons Act (Vic) of the year 1990 and the Drugs, Poisons and
Controlled Substances Act (Vic) of the year 1981 in the given scenario, it may be said that Jane
possessed a large knife and bear mace, therefore, the private search conducted on Jane by the
officer shall be justified.
Applying section 139 as provided in the Evidence Act of the year 2008 in the given
scenario, it may be said that Jane should have been cautioned by the police before questioning.
In the given scenario, the installation of the surveillance device in Jane’s house should be
in conformity to the ‘Australian Privacy Principles’ and as per the Privacy Act of the year 1988.

5CRIMINAL LAW
Conclusion
To conclude, it may be said that:-
 The arrest made by the police shall be considered to be valid.
 There may be prospects for Jane in attaining bail.
 The police had the authority to conduct a search on Jane.
 The police violated procedures during the questioning of Jane.
 The installation of cameras in the house of Jane cannot be considered to be lawful.

6CRIMINAL LAW
References
Bail Act, 1977.
Control of Weapons Act, 1990 (Vic).
Crimes Act, 1914 (Cth).
Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act, 1981 (Vic).
Evidence Act, 2008.
Hyder v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] NSWCA 336.
Privacy Act, 1988.
R v Naa (2009) 76 NSWLR 271.