When “Inappropriate” Isn’t Always “Indecent”: Lessons from Police v Hill [2025] SASC 127
What happened?
A police prosecutor was accused of indecently assaulting a female sheriff’s officer by deliberately tickling her buttock in a courthouse. The Magistrate accepted the touching occurred and was deliberate — but acquitted him of indecent assault.
Why? Because the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the touching had a sexual connotation. The Magistrate said it may have been an ill-conceived “joke” rather than an act of sexual gratification or humiliation.
The appeal
The Commissioner of Police appealed, arguing the Magistrate had misunderstood the law on “indecency” and that the officer should at least have been convicted of common assault.
Justice Stein dismissed the appeal. The Court found:
The Magistrate correctly applied the law: indecent assault requires proof the touching carried a sexual connotation.
Common assault was not open on appeal, because the prosecution had never asked the Magistrate to consider it during the trial.
Appeals against acquittals must be approached with caution due to double jeopardy principles — defendants should not be retried simply because the prosecution framed its case too narrowly.
Why this matters
Prosecutors must charge carefully. If the prosecution wanted an assault conviction, it needed to include that charge from the outset.
The law on “indecency” is narrow. Not every unwanted touch — even of an intimate area — will automatically be considered indecent. Context and sexual connotation matter.
Community standards and legal standards differ. The Court acknowledged the behaviour was “harassing, unacceptable and inappropriate”, but those words were not enough to meet the strict test for indecent assault.
This case underlines a gap between workplace expectations and the criminal law. While most workplaces rightly enforce a zero-tolerance approach to unwanted physical contact, the courts still require proof of sexual connotation to secure an indecent assault conviction.
For victims, it shows why workplace policies and civil remedies remain essential alongside criminal charges. For employers, it reinforces the need for strong misconduct policies that go beyond what criminal law can provide.
Read the full judgment at: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASC/2025/127.html