Criminal Law: NSW Case Study on Inter-Agency Cooperation and Evidence

This report analyzes a criminal law scenario involving RFS workers suspected of theft during a fire season evacuation in New South Wales, Australia. The report explores the importance of inter-agency cooperation between police and other emergency services, as well as the rules of evidence, specifically the hearsay rule and the admissibility of visual identification. It examines the powers of police to arrest suspects based on reasonable suspicion under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA) 2002 and the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The report also discusses potential defenses the suspects might use, such as lack of mens rea (guilty mind), arguing they were acting under the supervision of a superior and did not intend to steal the properties. References to relevant case law and legislation are included to support the analysis, highlighting the complexities of criminal law in emergency situations.

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
0
CRIMINAL LAW
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author’s note:

1CRIMINAL LAW
The given scenario is based on an incident of the middle of the fire season and evacuation
of the people of such identified street in New South Wales of the Australian territory. The
government has identified several streets and places as fires threatening area and directed RFS,
Police and personnel of State Emergency Services to evacuate those places. However, one of the
residents in Jones Street, which is not identified as a threatening zone, has informed the police
regarding the suspicious activity of two RFS workers in his area. The RFS workers have been
carrying some household properties in their car and driven away. The informer, Mr Barry, has
described the identifications and car number plate of those men. The police have found the
described car, as well as the persons with several costly properties. They have identified
themselves as RFS workers but do not remember their superior. The police constables have
arrested them as suspicious of stolen property. This paper aims to discuss the importance of
inter-agency cooperation, hearsay rule, admissibility of the visual identification, reasonable
suspicion and defence of the suspects following the relevant legislations of Australia.
Inter-agency cooperation has involved two or more than two agencies who have been
deciding on working with each other (Hufnagel, 2017). In any specific case of crime, the police
authority may have to need the help of other authorities for several reasons, such as the forensic
department or intelligence department. There are various advantages and importance of the inter-
agency cooperations in the territory of Australia. There are numerous intricate problems, which
may arise during any emergency, then the expertise of other agencies may solve that complexity
in their view. In many situations, the collective endeavour of the police agencies and other
security forces may become potential and very effective to control the situation. It does not make
any sense for the agencies for duplicating their services, which have been offered by such other
agencies or experts (Herrington et al., 2019). During calculating the importance of inter-agency

2CRIMINAL LAW
work, there should be cooperation between them and understanding of those work. One of the
most important of the inter-agency work is that different agency of their different viewpoints and
duties to solve the issues. It has helped one agency to delegate the responsibilities, which may
have not attainable in their perspective and maybe feasible for other agencies. Therefore, the
inter-agency work in the territory of NSW and Australia is beneficial for the policy of the police
authority. As an example, the NSW Police Forces has collaborated with stakeholders for the
progress of the Mental Health Intervention Team Program.
The term hearsay means any view of an individual, which has been received to the person
indirectly rather than directly from the person who is a witness of the happening (Spencer, 2014).
In the given scenario, the police author has started an investigation about the two suspects who
are recognising themselves as RSF workers and evacuate the houses of a non-identified area of
threatening fires. Section 59 of the Uniform Evidence Act has dealt with the hearsay rules in the
territory of Australia. The hearsay rules have been applied for evidence of any representations,
which have made out of court. It may be written, oral or any method of conduct that has been
leading as the evidence of the truth of facts and the representation. The hearsay evidence is not
admissible in the court of law. Section 60 of this Act has described the exceptions of the hearsay
evidence where the law has taken into consideration of such hearsay evidence. In the case law,
Baker vs the Queen 2010 it has decided that for admitting such evidence, there should be a
proper reason for admission. In this scenario, Barry has made that statement to the police
constables, which is fresh in his memory. It is an exception of the hearsay rule in Australia and
admissible in under section 66 of this Act. Therefore, the information is given by Barry to the
police constables is admissible, and the authority may take steps towards such investigation.

3CRIMINAL LAW
In this given scenario, Barry has described the suspicions to the police constables in an
obvious way what he has seen at the time of occurring the incident. He has described their
height, hair, face, the structure of their body, and wearing shirts. He further explains that there is
no tag of RFS in their shirts, which is ordinarily persisted in the shirt of RFS worker. This type
of identification may be categorised as visual identification. Section 165(1)(b) of the Evidence
Act 1995 has required the warnings in relations to the identification evidence. Section 114 of this
Act has limited the admissibility of visual identification. This type of evidence may be taken on
the basis of a fact, which has been seen by a person. The police constables on the belief of that
person’s visual identification have abled to arrest the persons who are connected in a corrupt
gang of doing illegal activities such as evacuating from someone’s home. In the Law
Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA), 2002 has described the arrest of a
person by a police constable without a warrant. Section 99 of this Act has provided this power to
the police to arrest of such a person who is suspected of doing any criminal action or reason to
believe that he will do any illegal activity. Section 116 (1) of the Evidence Act 1995 has
described that the approach of the witness of a crime should be reliable and reason to believe the
act of the accused. In this scenario, the police have relied on Barry, and according to the given
direction of Barry, they have been able to arrest the suspicions. Therefore, the visual
identification can be capable of admissible by the police force as per their policy because there is
a reason to believe of such activity.
Section 21 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA), 2002
has provided power to the police constables to stop any suspicions for searching them, and if
there is any other doubts have arisen, then they have the power to detain them. In this given
scenario, the police constables have left the house of Barry to search the vehicle which has been

4CRIMINAL LAW
described by him. They have found the vehicle and investigated it. They have discovered various
expensive materials in that car. The police have asked the person for identification, and the
persons have given the same. They further state that they have been working with RFS under a
supervisor. They do not seem able to recall the name of their supervisor. Police have also asked
about the expensive materials in the car, then they have informed that they are helping to save
the belongings of the people to take them in the evacuation centre. However, they are not able to
provide the name and address of the evacuation centre. Police have further discovered several
valuable stolen properties from their vehicle. In this situation, police have arrested and cautioned
them. The persons have not satisfied by answering to the police. Sections 4B and 192E of the
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) have dealt with dishonesty and fraud, respectively. The police can
arrest them on those sections of the Act. The legislation, as mentioned above, has provided the
power to arrest in that suspicion situation. the constables have arrested them for theft without any
warrant because there is a reason to believe the criminal activity of the suspects. The police
constables have detained them legally; therefore, they should be produced before the Magistrate
within a reasonable time.
The police have arrested the persons in suspicion of theft of the valuable properties
belonging to the persons to whom they have evacuating illegally. The arrested person can take
defence for theft by showing that there was no mens rea for taking those expensive materials
from those houses. As they were under the supervision of their senior, they did not have any
intention to steal those properties. The suspected persons wanted to save the belongings of those
people who are vacating their houses, by collecting them on the evacuation centre. In the case
law, DPP vs Morgan 1976, it has decided that there should be mens rea to establish a crime.
Jordon CJ of the NSW Criminal Court of Appeal has mentioned in the case R vs Turnball 1977

5CRIMINAL LAW
that a mere assumption of guilty mind on the part of the prosecution can not be capable of
holding liable of the suspected person. The arrested persons can take the defence of want of
mens rea on their part.
Therefore, it can be concluded that inter-agency cooperation within the territory of
Australia is beneficial of the police authority for any issue which may not within the control of
them. The police can able to arrest them legally without any warrant as the suspects were doing
an illegal act. It may be revealed in this context that the detained persons can take a defence of
lack of mens rea or the guilty mind of doing that activity as they have been under the supervision
of their superior.

6CRIMINAL LAW
References
Baker v The Queen [2010] VSCA 226
DPP v Morgan [1976] AC 182
Herrington, V., Blackman, D., Carroll, J., & Owen, C. (2019). Connected policing: The
importance of social capital and boundary spanning in Australian police leadership.
In Police Leadership (pp. 255-275). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Hufnagel, S. (2017). Police Cooperation in Europe, China and Australia: Does Trust Depend on
the Political System?. In A Question of Trust?: Social & Legal Imperatives in
International Police and Justice Co-operation. Hart Publishing.
R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224
Spencer, J. R. (2014). Hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings. Bloomsbury Publishing.
The Crimes Act, 1900 (NSW)
The Evidence Act, 1995 No 25 (NSW)
The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (LEPRA) (NSW)