Get all your news in one place.
100's of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
ABC News
ABC News
National

Adelaide woman's conviction for punching police officer in groin overturned on appeal

The police officer was punched in the groin at the Adelaide City Watch House. (ABC News: Eugene Boisvert)

A woman who punched a police officer in her groin when she was forced to undress at Adelaide's City Watch House has had her conviction quashed.

South Australia's Supreme Court found police had never provided evidence in court that the woman was in lawful custody when she hit the female officer.

The woman was taken into custody at the City Watch House in October 2018 after being arrested for disorderly behaviour while drunk.

She refused to have her photograph taken and, rather than being granted police bail, was instead placed into a holding cell, where two female police officers asked her to remove her stockings.

The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the magistrates court. (ABC News: Eugene Boisvert)

The Adelaide Magistrates Court heard this was a "general standard request" for all items which could be used for self-harm.

She refused to remove her stockings and the officers tried to remove them themselves.

She eventually said she would do it, but wanted to do it in private because she was not wearing anything underneath.

She then punched one of the officers in the groin, the court heard.

The two officers then restrained her and pulled off the stockings.

Question over lawful custody

The woman's lawyer told the Adelaide Magistrates Court there was no evidence presented that the defendant was lawfully under arrest and therefore the prosecution could not establish that the officer was "acting in the lawful execution of her duty" when she was hit.

The magistrate rejected the argument and convicted the woman, putting her on a $500 18-month good behaviour bond.

But that conviction was later quashed by Supreme Court Justice Sophie David.

Justice David said that because the woman was not wearing underwear, removing her stockings constituted a "highly intrusive safety search" that was not justified since she had not yet been properly taken into custody.

She said one of the police officers had agreed at trial that there was "no indication, by words or conduct, that she was in fact at risk of harming herself" — the reason given for removing the stockings.

The judgement was handed down on Tuesday.

SA Police declined to comment.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.