Resist or Hinder Police / Assault Police Charges
Clear advice on penalties, defences and what to expect in the NSW Local Court.
Charges involving conduct towards police officers generally fall into two categories under NSW law. Resisting or hindering a police officer in the execution of their duty, without any actual assault, is a summary offence under section 546C of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and typically arises from a person pulling away during an arrest, refusing to comply with a lawful direction, or otherwise obstructing an officer carrying out their duties. Assaulting a police officer is a more serious, separate offence under section 60 of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries substantially higher maximum penalties than an equivalent assault on a member of the public, reflecting the additional protection the law affords to officers carrying out their duties.
Section 60 is tiered in a similar way to other assault offences: a basic assault on a police officer in the execution of their duty carries a higher maximum than common assault, an assault causing actual bodily harm carries a higher penalty again, and an assault causing wounding or grievous bodily harm attracts the highest maximum penalty in this group. These matters frequently arise during arrests, public order incidents, or domestic violence call-outs, and body-worn video has become one of the most significant forms of evidence in how they are investigated and defended.
A central and recurring issue in these matters is whether the officer was actually acting in the lawful execution of their duty at the time. If an arrest or direction was not lawful — for example, because it exceeded the officer’s legal powers — resisting it may not constitute an offence at all, making the lawfulness of the police conduct itself a genuine and important line of defence in many cases.
Penalties
What you could be facing
| Penalty | Maximum | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Resist or hinder a police officer in the execution of duty (s546C Crimes Act 1900) | 12 months imprisonment and/or a fine | A summary offence dealt with in the Local Court, applying to conduct that obstructs or resists police without amounting to an actual assault. |
| Assault police officer in execution of duty (s60(1) Crimes Act 1900) | 5 years imprisonment | Carries a higher maximum than common assault against a member of the public, reflecting the specific statutory protection given to police officers performing their duties. |
| Assault police officer occasioning actual bodily harm (s60(2)) | 7 years imprisonment | Applies where the assault results in actual bodily harm to the officer, in the same way section 59 applies to assaults on members of the public generally. |
| Assault police officer causing wounding or grievous bodily harm (s60(3)) | 12 years imprisonment | The most serious tier in this group, reserved for assaults on police causing wounding or really serious injury. |
Possible Defences
Ways this charge can be challenged
Unlawful exercise of police powers
Police must be acting in the lawful execution of their duty at the time for these offences to apply. Where an arrest, search or direction exceeded the officer’s legal powers, resisting or objecting to it may not constitute an offence, making the lawfulness of the specific police conduct a genuine issue in many matters.
Self-defence
Where a person’s response was a reasonable reaction to a genuine belief that excessive or unlawful force was being used against them by police, self-defence can apply in the same way it applies to any other assault charge, though it is scrutinised carefully given the context.
Absence of knowledge that the person was a police officer
Particularly where an officer was in plain clothes or did not clearly identify themselves, a person may not have known, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that they were dealing with police, which can be relevant to whether the offence is made out.
No intention to resist, hinder or assault
Reflexive or accidental contact during a chaotic arrest, such as flinching, stumbling, or an instinctive reaction, without any intention to resist, hinder or assault the officer, may not satisfy the mental element required for these offences.
What Happens Next
The Local Court process
- 01
Following an incident, the accused is typically arrested and either bail-assessed or issued with a court attendance notice, particularly where the allegation involves resisting rather than assaulting police.
- 02
At the first mention in the Local Court, a plea of guilty or not guilty is entered, and a decision is made as to whether the matter will remain in the Local Court or, for more serious assault charges, whether an election for trial is appropriate.
- 03
If a not guilty plea is entered, the prosecution serves its brief of evidence, including body-worn video and any independent witness statements, before the matter is listed for a defended hearing.
- 04
At a defended hearing, the prosecution must prove that the officer was acting in the lawful execution of their duty and that the accused resisted, hindered or assaulted them as alleged, beyond reasonable doubt.
- 05
The defence can challenge the lawfulness of the police conduct itself, raise self-defence, or dispute the identification or characterisation of the accused’s actions shown in any footage.
- 06
If a guilty plea is entered, or the charge is proven at hearing, the matter proceeds to sentencing, where courts generally treat offending against police more seriously than equivalent conduct against a member of the public, reflecting the deterrent purpose of these provisions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions
Resisting or hindering police under section 546C involves obstructing or resisting an officer without any actual assault, such as pulling away during an arrest, while assaulting police under section 60 involves an actual assault — applying or threatening force — and carries substantially higher maximum penalties depending on any resulting injury.
Not necessarily, but if an officer is in plain clothes and does not clearly identify themselves as police, this can be relevant to whether the accused knew, or reasonably should have known, that they were dealing with a police officer at the time.
Yes. Police must be acting in the lawful execution of their duty for these offences to apply, so if an arrest, search or direction exceeded the officer’s legal powers, this can provide a genuine basis to contest the charge, regardless of how the incident might otherwise appear.
Body-worn video has become one of the most significant forms of evidence in these matters, and is typically reviewed closely by both prosecution and defence to assess exactly what occurred, including whether police conduct was lawful and proportionate.
Section 60 imposes higher maximum penalties than the equivalent general assault offences specifically to protect police officers carrying out their duties and to deter violence against them, reflecting a clear legislative policy that is applied deliberately at sentencing.
It is possible for a lower-level, first-time resisting charge with no injury involved, particularly where there is a good prior record and the circumstances suggest an isolated lapse, but courts are generally more cautious with offences involving police than equivalent conduct towards the public.
Related Offences
You may also be looking for
Going to court?
Speak with our team today for a free first conference and clear, fixed-fee advice on your matter.
Call 0414 444 474