Resisting, hindering or wilfully obstructing police

Our expert criminal lawyers for Resisting, hindering or wilfully obstructing police offences can help you:

• Obtain bail.
• Be found not guilty.
• Receive a lenient sentence, like no conviction and no prison.

You will be represented by a team of award-winning criminal lawyers, with 500+ five-star Google reviews, who offer fixed fees and free first consultations.

You can read our reviews here.

Resisting, hindering or obstructing police 

Resisting, hindering, or willfully obstructing a police officer can result in charges that are among the most unjust experiences a person can have in the criminal courts. It is not unusual for police to falsely accuse people of assaulting them in circumstances where the police were the ones to have engaged in unlawful, violent conduct. 

Our criminal lawyers are not scared to call out these bullying tactics. This is why our criminal lawyers have great success in defending charges of Resisting, hindering or obstructing a police officer.

If you intend to plead guilty our criminal lawyers have a proven track record of keeping our clients out of jail and also having no conviction recorded for resisting, hindering or obstructing a police officer.

Pleading not guilty

To be found guilty, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

1. You
   • Resisted the person; or
   • Wilfully obstructed the person; or
   • Hindered the person; or
2. The person was a police officer; and
3. The assault occurred while the person was acting in the execution of his/her duty.

You can plead not guilty, establishing the elements above were not satisfied. 

What amounts to resisting police?

Resistance generally involves using force to oppose a police officer carrying out their duties, such as attempting to avoid arrest or physically struggling with officers.

What amounts to obstructing the police?

Wilful obstruction includes conduct that interferes with police carrying out their lawful duties, even if it falls short of an assault.

What amounts to hindering the police? 

A police officer is hindered by an obstruction or interference that makes his duty substantially more difficult in performance.

You can read more information about pleading not guilty here.

Common defences include: 

• Self-defence, you acted to protect yourself or another person.
• No resistance, hindrance, or obstruction occurred. 
• Mental health considerations. 
• Identification, you were not the offender.

Self-defence is one of the most commonly successful defences.

Pleading guilty to assaulting a police officer

If you plead guilty, our focus is on securing the best possible outcome and avoiding a criminal record wherever possible. We negotiate with the police to reduce the charge or negotiate the agreed facts.

The maximum penalty is imprisonment for five years and a $2,200 fine. 

You can read about all the sentencing options a court has, including no conviction being recorded for resisting, hindering, or obstructing a police officer.

You can read more on resisting and hindering police offences here. 

You can read more about pleading guilty here.

Do I need references?

We believe references are an extremely important part of a plea of guilty in court. Read about court processes and how to write a good character reference.

Contact Australian Criminal Law Group

Our criminal lawyers, with 500+ five-star Google reviews, can beat your resisting and hindering police charge or obtain a lenient sentence for you if you plead guilty.

Call us on (02) 8815 8167 for your free first conference or submit a website enquiry.

Case studies

Not guilty – Police evidence rejected

Our lawyer represented a man accused of offensive behaviour. He was a peeping tom in bushes watching women urinating in a park. He also resisted police by struggling with them when they tried to arrest him. Our lawyer cross-examined the police over two days. The Magistrate found that the lighting was too poor to find beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused man was not simply in the bushes to urinate himself. The police evidence was found to be inconsistent in regard to the resist police allegation. The Magistrate found the evidence of the Accused man should be accepted over the six police who gave contradictory evidence. The Accused man was found not guilty of all charges.

Not guilty – Defect in the indictment 

Our lawyer represented a young man charged with a single offence of resisting arrest with two police officer victims. The matter proceeded to hearing and our lawyer cited a defect in the indictment. While it could be argued there was evidence one police officer was resisted, there was no evidence of the second officer being resisted. The Magistrate accepted the argument. The Accused man was found not guilty on a technicality (the deficient indictment).

No conviction – Character and circumstances considered

Our lawyer represented a young man accused of hindering police from arresting a friend by pulling police officers off him and then resisting arrest. Our lawyer argued that his client had a charitable background, including lifesaving and volunteering with the Rural Fire Service. This meant that not only was he of impeccable character, but he was also not the type who could be a spectator if he perceived a wrong (correctly or not). It was argued that the community and society had benefited from that aspect of his personality. The court could appropriately extend leniency where it had played a role in the offending. The Magistrate did not record a conviction.