Andrew Ey and Casey Isaacs are both criminal defence lawyers.
Casey Isaacs is a highly respected criminal defence lawyer with more than two decades’ experience practising exclusively in criminal law. He is recognised in Doyle’s Guide as a Leading South Australian Criminal Defence Lawyer, a distinction awarded based on peer review by fellow criminal lawyers and barristers for demonstrated expertise, ability and standing in the profession.
... our newly appointed partner Andrew Ey has been named as a recommended leading solicitor in criminal defence (in the Doyles Guide).
Casey provides clear, concise advice irrespective of how simple or complex your criminal charges are.
www.caldicottlawyers.com.au
From :
Summary Offences Act 1953
I’m not a lawyer, but I actually went and read the SA Act people keep waving around, and here’s my take.
In South Australia the “trespassers on premises” offence people are hinting at is in the Summary Offences Act s 17A. The mechanism is basically this: someone trespasses in a way that interferes with the occupier, an authorised person asks them to leave, and then the person either refuses to leave forthwith or comes back again within 24 hours.
Now look at what we can actually see in the video. The reporter is told to leave, and she leaves. Immediately. That is literally the opposite of what s 17A is trying to punish. You don’t get to call it “trespass” as a gotcha when the moment the occupier withdraws consent the person complies.
The sign point is the same story. A sign can revoke implied permission in some circumstances, sure, but it doesn’t magically turn “walk up, ask for comment, leave when told” into a criminal offence. Where was the sign. Was there a closed gate. Was it obvious before entry. Was the normal access to the front door blocked. None of that is being shown here, it’s just assumed.
And the “SAPOL told the media to stay away” line keeps getting repeated like it’s proven fact. How do you know every outlet got that notice. You don’t. And even if police said it publicly, that still isn’t the same thing as the occupier personally asking someone to leave under s 17A unless you can show police were acting with the occupier’s authority.
Also, public interest matters in plain English terms. A missing child, family on a remote property, a journalist seeking comment, that’s exactly the kind of scenario where “approach the front door and ask” is normal conduct. You can hate the Daily Mail all you want, but wanting comment on that situation is not some random nuisance visit.
What’s wild to me is watching people bend over backwards on a shaky “trespass” claim to justify someone coming out with a gun. That’s not normal, and it’s not responsible. I’m glad we have strict gun laws in Australia, because some people clearly think a firearm is a reasonable response to the slightest inconvenience, and that mindset is exactly why the laws exist.
And if you both “don’t want to rehash this”, stop rehashing it. You keep bringing it back up, and every time it’s the same leap from “sign” to “crime” with none of the actual elements.
