Three police officers making inquiries walked up to the path to Robson's door.
On knocking, Sergeant was invited by the owner's son
When the owner askde him to leave, the Sergeant turned immediately to leave but he was jumped on from behind.
The two other officers who were waiting outside the door came into rescue the Sergeant.
Words "get out" were used
Robson argued that he could not be guitly of assaulting police officers because the police officers were trespassing and thus were not acting in the course of their duty when assaulted.
Robson v Hallett
There is an implied licence to walk up to the front door of anyone's house.
That licence can be revoked by express refusal or a sign saying there is no admittance
On revocation, a reasonable opportunity to leave must be given before someone becomes a trespasser.
Robson v Hallett
Two ways in which a person who enters a land may fail to be trespass (two basis to excuse a trespass)
Implied licence: to walk up to the door
Exercise of independent right: to proceed to the land once a breach of the peace takes place (this part may not apply to NZ decisions as it is an English case)
Importance of Implied Licence
Fundemantal to law enforcement
Society would not function well if there was no implied licence
The idea behind it is that "we assume they don't mind"
Lawful purpose only: If you do not have lawful intentions then you cannot use implied licence.
The principle in Robson v Hallett was endorsed by the
New Zealand Supreme Court in Tararo v R.
Implied licence principle modifies the law in Entick v Carrington, in which Lord Camden CJ stated ...
"every invasion of property" was a trespass
In Robson v Hallett, Diplock LJ also acknowledged that two of the police officers had an independent right (or duty) to enter the premises when they apprehended a breach of the peace. Further research would be required to determine whether;
1-) the law is the same in NZ
2-) it would apply the sam way on these facts
An affirmative answer to both those could render the analysis of the implied licence point redundant.
Implied licence can be terminated by
making it clear to the person who came on to the land that they may no longer remain on the property.
if this happens, those who have come on to the land must leave within a reasonable time or they will be liable for trespass
Movies question- buy ticket, middle of the movie asked to leave. You refuse to leave. Are you trespassing?
The key distinction between this and Robson v Hallett is the distinction between a bare licence and a contractual licence.
Robson v Hallett is concerned with a bare licence (no exchange of promises)
Current case is concerned with a contractual licence (exchange of promises)
This is not a situation to which Robson v Hallett speaks