One of the more common ways our police and prosecutors have amplified otherwise insignificant events is by alleging and ultimately arresting a person for, resisting arrest and obstruction. This is not to say that these crimes are not legitimate offenses and prosecutions are not warranted, but that the conduct for which a person is accused may not be based on sound law. Neither the term “arrest” nor “obstruction” is defined in our Penal Code. In Rice v. Connolly (1966) Lord Parker CJ stated that the prosecution had to prove: A) That there was and obstruction of a police officer; B) That the defendant obstructing did so willfully; and C) That the police officer was at that time acting in the execution of his/her duty. British legal authorizes have agreed that obstruction is the doing of an act which has the effect of making it impossible or more difficult for members of the police to carry out their duty. That the word “willfully” clearly imports and additional requirement. The act must not only have been done deliberately, but with the knowledge and intention that it will have this obstructive effect. In Willmott V Atack (1977) the court held that it was not sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the defendant had deliberately done an act which had resulted in the obstruction of a police officer. What also had to be shown was that he/she had done the act with the intention of obstructing the officer in the sense of making it more difficult to carry out his/her duty. There is still in our courts the reasonable doubt standard and in my specific case the police officer it has been alleged that I obstructed did not mention in his sworn to statement that I obstructed him and when under cross examination my me he stated that he was not aware of my obstructing him. The question therefore for the court to decide was whether a police officer’s job can be made impossible or more difficult if he is unaware that his job was being made more difficult. The police officer who arrested me for obstruction had no reasonable grounds for believing that the offense of obstructing for which I was arrested had been committed therefore the arrest was unlawful and there could therefore be no lawful arrest therefore no resisting! Furthermore in resisting arrest the person is guilty of this crime only if he or she intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer from effecting and authorized arrest of him or another person. I was certainly not medically fix to prevent police officers from effecting my arrest because I was on crutches and unable to walk without support. The police admitted to the court under cross examination that it appeared to them as if I was depended upon my crutches. They also admitted that they took my crutches from be and dragged me some fifty yards to a police vehicle. A critical component of any Resisting Arrest is that the action not only is intentional and as a means to prevent a police officer from making an arrest but the arrest must be an authorized one. During my trial I proved beyond any reasonable doubt that police officers do not always act lawfully although they are required by law to do so, and that we are in urgent need of having the police policed by some type of citizen oversight body to keep the police honest.
Posted on: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:37:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015