Obstruct / Resist Police Lawyer
Cairns & Far North Queensland
You have been charged with assaulting or obstructing a police officer. This is a charge that frequently arises from an interaction that escalated — an argument during a traffic stop, resisting when being arrested, pulling away from a police officer, or trying to help a friend who was being detained. The charge often accompanies a public nuisance charge from the same incident. Assault or obstruct police is a more serious charge than public nuisance. It directly names a police officer as the victim, it carries a higher maximum penalty, and a conviction for it carries greater weight on a criminal record. But the charge is also one of the most commonly over-charged offences in the Magistrates Court — because the legal definition of "obstruction" requires more than simply arguing with police or refusing to comply with a direction.
The Offence — Section 790, Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000
Section 790 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) provides that a person must not: Assault a police officer in the performance of the officer's duties, or Obstruct a police officer in the performance of the officer's duties "Obstruct" is defined broadly and includes hinder, resist, and attempt to obstruct . Maximum penalties Standard offence: 40 penalty units or 6 months imprisonment Within or in the vicinity of licensed premises: 60 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment Assault vs obstruction — the distinction matters "Assault" in this section carries the definition from the Criminal Code — applying force to another person, directly or indirectly, without consent. Striking a police officer or pushing an officer away are assaults under this section. "Obstruction" is broader but still has limits. It means making the officer's lawful duties more difficult to perform . Physically resisting arrest, pulling away, blocking an officer's path, giving false information, or interfering with the arrest of another person all constitute obstruction. But verbal non-compliance alone — arguing, questioning a direction, swearing at an officer, or refusing to answer questions — does not meet the legal threshold unless it is accompanied by conduct that actually hinders the officer in performing their duties. This distinction matters because many obstruct police charges are laid on the basis of verbal interactions that, while unpleasant, do not constitute obstruction in law. When the charge escalates to serious assault Where the conduct goes beyond the summary threshold — bodily harm is caused, spitting or biting occurs, or a weapon is involved — police will charge serious assault of a police officer under section 340(1)(b) of the Criminal Code . This is an indictable offence carrying a maximum of 7 years imprisonment, rising to 14 years in aggravated circumstances. It is a fundamentally different charge with different consequences, different preparation, and different sentencing outcomes.
The Critical Element — 'In the Performance of the Officer's Duties'
For the charge to be made out, the prosecution must prove that the officer was acting in the lawful performance of their duties at the time the assault or obstruction occurred. This is not a formality — it is a substantive element that can be challenged. What this means in practice A police officer is performing their duties when they are exercising a lawful power or carrying out a function authorised by law. This includes making an arrest, conducting a search, issuing a direction, or maintaining public order. But the power must be exercised lawfully — if the officer exceeded their authority, acted without a proper basis, or exercised a power incorrectly, the "performance of duties" element may not be satisfied. Common situations where this element is contested Unlawful arrest. If the arrest itself was not lawful — the officer did not have reasonable grounds, or the arrest was for an offence that did not justify arrest — then resistance to that arrest may not constitute obstruction of the officer's duties. Exceeding authority. A direction to move on under section 48 of the PPRA can only be given when the conditions in section 46 are met. If those conditions are not satisfied, failure to comply with the direction is not obstruction. Use of force by the officer. Where the officer used excessive force first, the person's response must be assessed in that context. Self-defence against excessive police force is legally available — though it is assessed on an objective standard and the response must be proportionate. Body-worn camera footage is critical for assessing this element. The footage shows the full interaction — including what the officer did before the alleged obstruction occurred. This is often the key to understanding whether the charge is properly made out.
Defending the Charge
Section 790 charges are among the most defensible summary charges in the Magistrates Court. The legal threshold is specific, the body-worn camera evidence usually exists, and the elements can be tested. Common defence strategies include: The conduct did not constitute obstruction Obstruction requires conduct that made the officer's lawful duties more difficult to perform. Verbal non-compliance — arguing, swearing, questioning a direction, expressing displeasure — does not meet this threshold unless it is accompanied by physical conduct that actually hinders the officer. If the entire basis for the charge is verbal interaction, the charge may not be made out. The officer was not acting lawfully If the officer was not exercising a lawful power at the relevant time — if the arrest was unlawful, the direction was invalid, or the officer was acting outside their authority — the "performance of duties" element fails. This is a complete defence. Self-defence Section 271 of the Criminal Code provides a defence where a person uses force to defend themselves against an unprovoked assault. If the officer used excessive force — force that was not reasonably necessary in the circumstances — the person's response may be justified as self-defence. This defence requires careful assessment of the footage and the circumstances. The police version is inaccurate The QP9 is the police version of events. It is not evidence — it is a summary prepared by the prosecution. Where the body-worn camera footage contradicts the QP9, or where the QP9 omits context that changes the character of the interaction, representations can be made to the prosecution before the plea date. In some cases, this results in the charge being withdrawn or amended. Identification and involvement Where the incident involves multiple people — a group outside a venue, a crowd situation — the prosecution must prove that the specific person charged was the person who committed the obstruction. In chaotic situations, identification can be genuinely contested.
Sentencing — What Changes the Outcome
The sentencing range for assault or obstruct police runs from a fine through to imprisonment. A fine or community service is the most common outcome in the Magistrates Court. Imprisonment is generally reserved for repeat offenders or cases involving significant violence. Whether this is a first offence. For a first offender whose conduct is at the lower end — pulling away during an arrest, verbal resistance that crossed the line into obstruction — no conviction recorded is a realistic outcome with proper preparation. The nature of the conduct. There is a significant difference between passive resistance (pulling away, going limp) and active assault (striking, spitting). The closer the conduct is to actual assault rather than obstruction, the more serious the sentencing outcome. Whether the licensed premises aggravation applies. The higher penalty tier doubles the maximum imprisonment to 12 months. More importantly, it signals to the court that the offence occurred in a context — the Cairns CBD entertainment precinct — where these offences are a particular concern. The officer's account of the impact. Some police prosecutors present victim impact information about the effect of the assault or obstruction on the officer. This can influence the court's approach to sentencing. Your criminal history. Prior offences — particularly prior offences against police — significantly affect the outcome. A person with a history of obstruct or assault police charges faces progressively more serious penalties with each subsequent offence. Your personal circumstances. Employment (particularly in roles that require a clear criminal record), family responsibilities, health circumstances, and the context in which the offence occurred are all relevant to whether a conviction is recorded and to the nature of the penalty.
Common Companion Charges
Assault or obstruct police rarely arises in isolation. The interaction that leads to the charge almost always begins with something else: Public nuisance (s 6 SOA) — the most common companion charge. The public nuisance is the original behaviour; the obstruct police charge arises from the police response to it. Common assault (s 335 Criminal Code ) — if the person also assaulted someone other than the police officer during the incident. Contravention of a move-on direction (s 791 PPRA) — if police issued a move-on direction before the obstruction occurred. Domestic violence charges — in DV matters, obstruct police may be charged when the person resists arrest or interferes with the police response to a DV incident. Trespass (s 11 SOA) — if police attended because the person was on premises unlawfully and they then obstructed the police response. Where multiple charges arise from one incident, the defence strategy must account for all of them. In some cases, the best outcome involves a plea to the lesser charge (public nuisance) with the obstruct police charge being withdrawn. This depends on the strength of the evidence and the specific facts.
The Body-Worn Camera — Why It Matters
Almost every obstruct police charge in Cairns involves body-worn camera footage. This footage is the single most important piece of evidence in the matter — for both sides. What the footage shows Body-worn cameras record the entire interaction from the officer's perspective. They capture what was said by both parties, the physical conduct, the sequence of events, and the context. In many cases, the footage tells a different story from the QP9 — it may show that the person was calmer than described, that the officer escalated the situation, that the alleged obstruction was momentary, or that the person was compliant before and after the incident. What the footage doesn't show Body-worn cameras record from one angle — the officer's chest or shoulder. They do not capture what happened behind the officer, they may not capture quiet speech clearly in loud environments, and they start recording from the moment they are activated — which may not be the beginning of the interaction. What happened before the camera was turned on is often relevant. How it is used Sacha obtains and reviews all body-worn camera footage before giving any advice about a plea or defence. The footage is the foundation for: Assessing whether the charge is properly made out Identifying discrepancies between the footage and the QP9 Making representations to the prosecution about reducing or withdrawing the charge Preparing the defence if the matter proceeds to a contested hearing No plea should be entered without the footage being reviewed. The QP9 alone is not a sufficient basis for advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is arguing with police obstruction?
Not on its own. Obstruction under section 790 PPRA requires conduct that makes the officer's lawful duties more difficult to perform. Verbal disagreement, questioning a direction, or expressing frustration — even forcefully — does not constitute obstruction unless it is accompanied by conduct that actually hinders the officer. This is a common basis for defence.
Can I be charged with obstruct police if the arrest was unlawful?
If the arrest was not lawful — the officer did not have reasonable grounds, or the arrest was for an offence that did not justify it — then resistance to that arrest may not constitute obstruction of the officer's duties. The prosecution must prove the officer was acting in the lawful performance of their duties. If they were not, the charge fails.
What is the difference between obstruct police and serious assault of police?
Obstruct police (s 790 PPRA) is a summary offence with a maximum of 6 months imprisonment (12 months near licensed premises). Serious assault of a police officer (s 340 Criminal Code ) is an indictable offence with a maximum of 7 to 14 years. The difference is the severity of the conduct — bodily harm, spitting, biting, or use of a weapon escalates the charge from summary to indictable.
Will I get a criminal record?
Not necessarily. For a first offender whose conduct is at the lower end of the spectrum, no conviction recorded is a realistic outcome. But assault or obstruct police carries more weight than public nuisance — the court takes the fact that the victim is a police officer seriously, and the sentencing outcome reflects that.
I pulled away when police grabbed me — is that obstruction?
It can be. Physically resisting arrest — including pulling away, going limp, or bracing against an officer — can constitute obstruction. But the context matters: the body-worn camera footage will show what the officer did before and during the arrest, whether reasonable force was used, and whether your response was momentary or sustained. These factors affect both whether the charge is made out and the sentencing outcome.