Published March 2026
Disorderly Behaviour and move-on notice charges discontinued after body-worn camera footage contradicted the police allegations
An argument outside a Perth bar escalated with remarkable speed from an accidental touch to an arrest on suspicion of sexual assault, followed by two separate criminal charges.
Our client had been removed from the venue and believed the decision to eject him was unfair. Outside, he continued discussing what had happened with a female security guard and was animatedly trying to make his point. As he gestured during the conversation, his hand accidentally grazed the security guard. She immediately flagged down passing police officers and initially told them that our client had touched her breasts. Within moments, what had begun as an argument about being removed from a bar had transformed into something much more serious. Our client was placed under arrest on suspicion of sexual assault. Shortly afterwards, however, the security guard clarified that the contact had been accidental. That clarification should have materially changed the situation. Despite it, police continued physically restraining our client for about another 10 minutes while he repeatedly denied deliberately touching the security guard and demanded to know why he was still being detained. Eventually, he was released. Police then issued him with a move-on order requiring him to leave the area. Our client began doing exactly that. As he walked away, however, he was suddenly grabbed from behind and arrested again. The apparent trigger for the second arrest was that he had pointed towards a security guard.
He was subsequently charged with Disorderly Behaviour and Failing to Obey a Move On Order. The consequences of those charges were more significant than they might appear at first glance. Our client was concerned about the effect that a criminal conviction could have on his future and wanted both allegations properly tested rather than accepting a compromise simply to bring the matter to an end.
We obtained and carefully reviewed the police body-worn camera footage. That evidence proved crucial. In our view, the conduct relied upon by the prosecution did not satisfy the legal requirements for disorderly behaviour. The footage showed a heated and frustrated interaction, but the existence of raised voices, gesturing or disagreement with police does not automatically amount to a criminal offence. The body-worn camera also revealed a more fundamental problem with the allegation that our client had failed to obey the move-on order. At the time of the second arrest, he appeared to be complying with the direction. He had been told to leave and was walking away when police intervened again. That raised an obvious question: how could he properly be convicted of failing to obey a move-on order if the available footage showed him in the process of complying with it?
The prosecution initially proposed a compromise. Our client could plead guilty to one charge and, in exchange, the other charge would be discontinued.
Having reviewed the footage closely, we did not consider that proposal fair or necessary. The evidence, in our view, justified a more fundamental reconsideration of whether either charge should proceed at all. We therefore pressed for the case to be reviewed again rather than encouraging our client to accept a conviction simply to avoid the uncertainty of a contested hearing. That further review ultimately changed the prosecution position. Both charges were discontinued.
There was no plea of guilty, no conviction and no criminal record arising from the incident.
For our client, the result brought to an end a prosecution that had developed rapidly from an accidental touch outside a bar into an arrest on suspicion of sexual assault, continued restraint by police, a move-on order and then a second arrest.
The case also demonstrates the importance of body-worn camera footage in public-order prosecutions. What is alleged in a police summary does not always capture the full sequence of events. Video can provide critical context about what was said, how a person behaved, what directions were given and whether those directions were actually being followed. In this case, careful review of the footage showed that the prosecution case was much less straightforward than the charges suggested.
A heated conversation outside a Perth bar had spiralled into criminal proceedings. Once the evidence was properly examined, both charges were discontinued.