WAS THE ARREST OF SASSY LAWFUL?
I WAS THERE IMPLIED LICENCE?
In Halliday v Nevill, as the High Court held, the police officers have implied licence to go upon the path leading to the entrance of private dwellings for legitimate purposes . Officers Andrew and Annabel went upon the drive way and stopped by the front door with purpose of questioning Sassy. Sassy is a sister of Cassy and is likely a lawful visitor at the party hosted by Cassie. They arrested Sassy on the driveway in the end. Therefore, the police would argue that they had an implied licence to enter the driveway leading to Cassie’s house.
II WAS the IMPLIED LICENCE REVOKED?
The implied licence can be negated if ‘something additional in the objective fact’ can arrive at such conclusion . They include the obstruction of path and a locked gate . In this case, a fence and a closed gate set the front yard apart from the public footpath. Sassy can argue that the path is obstructed, separating ‘the public thoroughfare and his or her private dwelling’ . However, the door was merely closed and remained unlocked when the police walked into the premise. Therefore, the police could claim …show more content…
For the purpose of lawful communication with Cassie, they should have knocked again and kept looking for Cassie. Instead, Andrew picked up his wife’s call and Annabel checked social media sites while waiting for Cassie. Counsel for Sassy may argue that using phones for personal reasons falls outside the scope of legitimate purposes. The police were trespassing when they were using their phones at the front door. However, the police could claim that Bruce gave them implied licence to wait outside the door. Since their usage of phones dealt with personal business, which ‘involves no interference with the occupier’s possession nor injury to the occupier, his or her guests or his, her or their property’ , it still fell within the range of the implied
I WAS THERE IMPLIED LICENCE?
In Halliday v Nevill, as the High Court held, the police officers have implied licence to go upon the path leading to the entrance of private dwellings for legitimate purposes . Officers Andrew and Annabel went upon the drive way and stopped by the front door with purpose of questioning Sassy. Sassy is a sister of Cassy and is likely a lawful visitor at the party hosted by Cassie. They arrested Sassy on the driveway in the end. Therefore, the police would argue that they had an implied licence to enter the driveway leading to Cassie’s house.
II WAS the IMPLIED LICENCE REVOKED?
The implied licence can be negated if ‘something additional in the objective fact’ can arrive at such conclusion . They include the obstruction of path and a locked gate . In this case, a fence and a closed gate set the front yard apart from the public footpath. Sassy can argue that the path is obstructed, separating ‘the public thoroughfare and his or her private dwelling’ . However, the door was merely closed and remained unlocked when the police walked into the premise. Therefore, the police could claim …show more content…
For the purpose of lawful communication with Cassie, they should have knocked again and kept looking for Cassie. Instead, Andrew picked up his wife’s call and Annabel checked social media sites while waiting for Cassie. Counsel for Sassy may argue that using phones for personal reasons falls outside the scope of legitimate purposes. The police were trespassing when they were using their phones at the front door. However, the police could claim that Bruce gave them implied licence to wait outside the door. Since their usage of phones dealt with personal business, which ‘involves no interference with the occupier’s possession nor injury to the occupier, his or her guests or his, her or their property’ , it still fell within the range of the implied