Case Name & Citation: Roy v O’Neill [2020] HCA 45
- Court: High Court of Australia
- Date of Judgment: 9 December 2020
- Judges: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane and Edelman JJ
- Areas of Law: Trespass, Domestic violence, Admissibility of evidence
Roy v O’Neill [2020] HCA 45 is a significant High Court of Australia decision that addressed the scope of the implied licence doctrine concerning police entry onto private property. The case arose from an incident where police officers entered a residence to conduct a welfare check and subsequently administered a breath test to the appellant, Ms. Roy, leading to questions about the legality of their entry and actions.
Facts of the Case (Roy v O’Neill)
In June 2017, a Domestic Violence Order (DVO) was issued against Ms. Roy to protect her partner, Mr. Johnson. The DVO stipulated that Ms. Roy was prohibited from being in Mr. Johnson’s company or at his residence while under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating substances. On April 6, 2018, as part of “Operation Haven,” a proactive policing initiative targeting domestic violence, Constable Elliott and two other officers visited Mr. Johnson’s unit. Upon arrival, Constable Elliott observed Ms. Roy displaying signs of intoxication and requested that she undergo a breath test, which she consented to and which returned a positive result for alcohol. This led to charges against Ms. Roy for breaching the DVO.
Legal Proceedings
At trial, Ms. Roy challenged the admissibility of the breath test results, arguing that Constable Elliott had trespassed by entering the property without explicit authority, rendering the evidence unlawfully obtained. The trial judge agreed, excluding the breath test evidence on the grounds that the officer lacked the authority to be present on the premises.
The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (First Appeal) agreed with the trial court. But the Court of Appeal of the Northern Territory (Second Appeal) overturned the decision of the Supreme Court’s ruling, holding that the police had a lawful dual purpose—checking compliance with the DVO and ensuring Mr. Johnson’s welfare.
An appeal was then made to the High Court.
High Court Decision in Roy v O’Neill
The High Court, in a majority decision, sided with the Court of Appeal’s ruling, finding that the police officers had an implied licence to enter the premises.
Chief Justice Kiefel and Justices Keane and Edelman reasoned that the common law permits entry onto private property via an unobstructed path to engage in lawful communication with occupants, such as conducting a welfare check. They determined that Constable Elliott’s initial purpose was to check on Mr. Johnson’s welfare, which fell within the scope of the implied licence. More precisely, the officers’ dual purpose (to ensure compliance with the DVO and to check on Mr. Johnson) was legitimate. Upon observing Ms. Roy’s apparent intoxication, Constable Elliott then had reasonable grounds under section 126(2A) of the Police Administration Act (NT) to remain on the property and request a breath sample.
In contrast, Justices Bell and Gageler dissented. They were of the view that the implied licence did not extend to coercive actions such as requiring a breath test. Since the officers intended to compel Roy to submit to a breath test, they acted beyond the scope of the implied licence and were trespassers.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the police lawfully obtained the breath test evidence under the implied licence doctrine, as their entry had a legitimate purpose. The decision reinforced police powers in proactive domestic violence enforcement, allowing them to conduct compliance checks under common law principles.
References:
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2020/45.html
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM TORT LAW: