Police v Daniel Eamon Pfeifer (1997)

Find and read the following South Australian Full Supreme Court case, Police v Daniel Eamon Pfeifer (1997) 68 SASR 285 [1997] SASC 6634 (28 May 1997) It can be located on Austlii at: (https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASC/1997/6634.html) Then answer the following questions: a) What was the issue in this case? (2 marks) b) What had the High Court said in He Kaw Teh v The Queen that was relevant to this issue? (4 marks) c) What did Doyle, CJ say in this case had to be determined for the prosecution to know what it had to prove for the defendant to be found guilty of the offence? (4 marks) d) What had happened in the previous proceedings of this case? (3 marks) e) What had a single judge of the Supreme Court ‘reluctantly’ decided before it came to the Full Supreme Court and what would that single judge prefer to have decided? (1 mark) f) What were the facts in this case? (2 marks) g) What was the relevant legislation and what offence did it specify? (3 marks) h) What did Doyle, CJ say would not be surprising about Parliament’s intention with respect to the guilty mind required and why? (2 marks) i) What did Doyle, CJ say was not surprising about the argument advanced by the defendant in this case and why? (1 mark) j) What did previous decisions say about the guilty mind required to commit the offence? (8 marks) k) What did Doyle, CJ conclude was the required state of mind to commit the offence of behaving in an offensive manner and how did he reach that conclusion? (10 marks)    

Sample Solution