WA Arrested by Police for Trespass Even with Ownership Documents?

[Pete pan]

S was paying off a house in Perth with instalments, much like rent. He had all the agreement papers and was living at the property. One day, the police came and asked why S was there. He told them that he was the new owner of the property and gave them a copy of ownership papers. They left then came back a couple times trying to tell him that he cannot be there as the house belongs to someone else.

S refused showing his ownership and gave details of who he was paying and buying the house off after about a month. S heard his dogs barking out the back so he went to check see what they were barking at. There were 2 policemen at his back door.

S told them to leave the property but they refused and were asking to be let in. S said no and asked what they wanted. They said that they were investigating a trespass. Swim informed the officers there was no trespassing and that he was the owner. The officers asked for proof, so S passed ownership papers through the door and then asked them if they were finished and to pass the papers back and to leave the property the officers refused and started breaking through the door eventually getting in side and assaulting S and arresting him for trespass.

How can this happen and what should and what can S do about this? He has now been told not to return there and now S's house has been locked down before this. S had his bail address for another matter to his house and was living there for approximately 2 months before this all happened.

I'm wondering how this is able to happen and how wapol could do this to S are they lawfully allowed to do this. Also I'm wondering after S was taken to the police station, he wanted to make a complaint and press charges on the officers assaulting him when broke into his house but the officers refused to let him. I couldn't imagine what I would do if it happened to me, so what can and what should S do?

 

[Victoria S]

Police must leave your premises when asked to unless they have a legitimate right to be there such as a warrant or specific purpose to accomplish. I don't even know why police would be involved in a trespass matter though, since trespass is usually a civil matter in which they have no jurisdiction.

 

[Rod]

Your friend should get some good legal advice. Much hinges on the terms of the property sale agreement.

It appears in WA trespass is a criminal offence (Section 70A: of the Criminal Code).

 

[Victoria S]

It appears in WA trespass is a criminal offence (Section 70A: of the Criminal Code).

Thanks for clarifying Rod!

 

[Pete pan]

Well, it seems as though S had purchased and was paying off the property but another person was trying to claim ownership. S had the agreement and details of the seller and offered them to police but police didn't pay any attention. He seems to believe that police had one objective and that was to arrest and remove him from his residence.

 

[Rod]

If true, your friend likely has at least 4 causes of action against the police:

Trespass
False arrest
False imprisonment, called deprivation of liberty in WA
Assault

Trespass is the important offence. Prove that and there's a good chance the other offences just fall into place.

Good time to see a lawyer.

 

[Pete pan]

Even if they charged him with trespass and made part of bail conditions not to be at that address keeping in mind that a few weeks before swim had got bail on another matter to his residence which is the address in question

 

[Rod]

Yes. Your friend's case hinges on exclusive possession of the property. If he has lawful exclusive possession then he should see a lawyer asap.

If your friend is committing some kind of fraud, or should not be in the property then he may well be 'stuffed', legally speaking.

 

[Pete pan]

Does it matter if S 100% believes he owned and was paying off the property? The police or anyone never showed him anything to say that they believed he didn't. He had paperwork agreement of purchasing with the seller's details and even had called the police about people acting suspiciously around the area and some damage that had been done to the front wall and also graffiti on back fence since moving in. Surely that proved he legitimately owned or at least legitimately believed he owned or at least had the right to be there.

Even before this event, he was on bail with his bail address at the property, so really, at the time of arrest when they broke into his house, he had to stay there as part of his bail conditions because that was his home and lived there but he was still assaulted and arrested and charged for a trespass.

He is still in the dark as to whether he was the victim of some property fraud due to nothing happening with it yet, but has a court date.

He, to this day, believes that he legally owned the house was even in the middle of renovations to the property. It seems this may not be as straightforward, as thought I presumed that due to him having proof and the events that took place, the police had done wrong, I was gonna tell him he needs to push for these officers to be punished and to be reimbursed or given back his house is that, correct?

 

[Rod]

Straighten out who should have possession first, everything else flows from that. It may not be easy to work through but it needs to be done and from the sounds of it your friend needs legal assistance to understand where his legal rights are located.

Your friend thinking he is entitled to possession is not enough. Imagine the problems that would be caused if people thinking they have exclusive possession rights just moved into other people's homes. Squatter's rights are limited against the true owner/person with exclusive rights to possession.