Since the Bible is not an 'Act', and the 'Crown' is not bound to it, you cannot do much with it in the Kangaroo "Courts" (you know businesses) of Australia.
In more cases or instances ever published by the mainstream media, Australia's police forces act with impunity without any regards to the Acts (or law) that are in play or even 'Code of Ethics' or so called 'Policy Rules'.
They act with impunity, because the corrupt legal system will indemnify them from any repercusions.
IF the police had to pay out of their OWN pockets, for a crime, they got charged from, like the serfs do, maybe then the results would be different, but that's NOT how the system is designed, and that's on purpose.
It is only through exposure by the public, on social media forums, that more people can be educated on the colony's criminal elite being exposed.
Along with senior constable Rankin, then NSW police acting sergeant
Fahey attended a NSW Northern Rivers region property at Warrazambil
Creek on 24 August 2021, in relation to an email detective inspector
Greenwood received suggesting a potential illegal gathering may take
place.
The legality of the gathering or possible protest on the private property was under question as it likely contravened a public health order
made under Public Health (COVID-19 Additional Restrictions for Delta
Outbreak) Order (No 2) 2021 (NSW), which was in force at that time due
to the pandemic.
Property owner Sanchia Romani had a sign on the gate and another
erected two metres inside the property, both warning that it was private
and those entering without permission would be trespassing. The inner
sign specified that police were included and a fine would apply on trespass.
Despite seeing the signage and noting the fact the property’s gate
was padlocked, the officers nevertheless jumped the fence and entered.
Both claimed to believe they had a right to enter, and Rankin later
specifically stating he was of the view the common law permitted police
entry to make inquiries over a suspected illegal act.
A traumatising intrusion
Sanchia wasn’t home at the time, although her 19-year-old daughter,
Maia Huxtable, was present and walked down the driveway to meet the
officers. A discussion ensued, which involved Maia telling police her
mother wasn’t home and asking them to go outside of the fence.
The young woman became increasingly uneasy as the officers asked
about what she was holding behind her back, which turned out to be her
phone, as well as when they told Maia that they’d be back repeatedly
until they spoke to her mother.
After the interaction, the officers left the property, and Maia
returned to the house, where her 14-year-old brother was also in a
distressed state.
Sanchia later explained that her children experienced “great anxiety,
distress, worry and trauma”, while she felt “grossly invaded”, as the
family had experienced a violent home invasion in 2016, which involved
two of her three children being chased by a man who was armed with a
gun.
On returning to Kyogle police station,
the officers filled detective Greenwood in on the visit, and he told
them not to return. The more senior officer then noted in the logbook
that the visit was spurred by an email from a shop where Sanchia had
tried to print her protest pamphlets.
Sanchia then submitted a 25 August complaint to NSW police
regarding the incident, in which she requested that no more repeat
visits occur. And in September, the district inspector sent a message to
her outlining that the police had attended the property, along with
explaining why they had.
In November, Sanchia proceeded to file a claim for relief in relation
to the tort of trespass with the NSW Supreme Court on behalf of herself
and Maia. And in March 2022, Justice Mark Ierace ordered that the
officers be removed as the defendants, and they be replaced by the NSW
state.
The state of NSW then filed a legal defence
on 16 May 2022, in which it admitting it was liable for the tort
committed by the two officers, that their actions did constitute
trespass “for a period of no more than three minutes”, and it denied the
plaintiffs “suffered a personal injury as a result”.
The tort of trespass
During the 6 and 7 of December 2022 hearings, Justice Robertson
Wright explained that Sanchia could raise the claim for compensation as
she was the registered owner, but questions remained as to whether Maia
could, as well as to whether the trespass occurred for more than three
minutes.
A tort is a wrongful act that leads to legal liability. The tort of
trespass occurs when there’s “interference with possession of land,
including physical entry onto and remaining on the land, without the
licence or consent of the person in possession or without other lawful
authority”.
Justice Wright noted that the High Court found in 1994’s Coco versus The Queen
that “any person who enters the property of another must justify that
entry by showing that he or she either entered with the consent of the
occupier or otherwise had lawful authority to enter the premises”.
While the High Court of Australia further ruled in 2008’s Kuru versus the State of New South Wales that “police officers have no special rights to enter land, except in cases provided for by the common law and by statute”.
And his Honour added that there was nothing in the current case to
suggest the officers involved had a “lawful right to enter” the property
without the consent of the occupier.
According to the High Court ruling in 1984’s Halliday versus Nevill,
in Sanchia’s case and in general, if a driveway or path to a dwelling
is left open, with no signage indicating visitors aren’t welcome, any
person is free to approach a residence for the purpose of lawful
communication.
“In these circumstances… the implied licence for the police officers
to enter the property for the purpose of such lawful communication was
impliedly refused or withdrawn by the locked gate and expressly revoked
or precluded by the signs,” Justice Wright ruled.
“There being no other authority for their entry, the police officers therefore committed the tort of trespass.”
Auxiliary matters
Despite Maia, as a resident and a family member, having been
disturbed on the property, Justice Wright explained that only Sanchia,
as the registered proprietor with exclusive possession of the property,
was able to seek compensation.
So, while the tort of trespass does extend the right to be free from
invasion to family members living in a domestic relationship on a
property, the disturbance of such a person aggravates the infringement
of the right of the registered proprietor, rather than permitting that
person to sue also.
And in terms of the period of time the officers were on the property,
his Honour found it was likely between three to five minutes.
Damages sought
Sanchia was seeking $2.35 million in compensation. And Justice Wright
outlined that even though the trespass lasted for a mere three to five
minutes and nothing was damaged, the plaintiff was “entitled to some
damages in vindication of her right to exclude the officers from her
property”.
On learning of the trespass, Sanchia had stated that her family’s
liberties in relation to peacefully living on their property had been
“grossly infringed”, that the conduct of the officers was “intrusive”
and that they’d acted “in a disturbing manner” as “they used their
powers to intimidate”.
His Honour found the trespass had not, however, led to Sanchia
experiencing physical, psychiatric or psychological injury, which, if
had been the case, wouldn’t have led to a successful claim anyway, as
the tort only permits damages for “natural and probable” consequences of
trespass.
“Sanchia’s feelings of hurt or distress resulting from the trespass…
are not in my view fully compensated for by the awarding of general
damages for violation of the right of exclusive possession,” Justice
Wright set out.
“Compensation for such feelings of hurt or distress caused by the
circumstances and manner of the wrongdoing may, however, be achieved by
way of aggravated damages, provided there is no double counting.”
And despite Sanchia not having expressly sought aggravated or
exemplary damages in addition to general damages, his Honour allowed the
civil case to proceed as if she had.
Orders of the day
Justice Wright explained that aggravated damages are a form of
general damages warranted due to injury, which may be intangible.
Although Sanchia’s injuries didn’t constitute this, as she was not
present during the trespass, but she was due to such damages in relation
to her kids’ trauma.
In terms of exemplary damages, these do not constitute compensation,
rather they’re an expression of the court’s disapproval of a wrongdoer’s
actions. And Sanchia was warranted such damages, as while the officers
believed they weren’t doing wrong, they should’ve known they were
trespassing.
In having considered the outcomes of other trespass cases, his Honour, on 7 February this year,
determined to award Sanchia $17,500 in compensation: $7,500 for the
breach of her right, $5,000 for aggravated damages and $5,000 in
relation to exemplary damages.
In calculating the interest over the interim period, the compensation
amount rose to $18,334.69. And no order on costs was resulting, which
left each party to cover their own.
