26/07/2026
POLICE ENTRY ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY - WHAT KURU AND ROMANI ACTUALLY SAY.
There remains a common misconception that police officers have some general or special authority, simply because they are police officers, to enter private land or remain inside a person’s home while they make inquiries.
They do not.
Police perform an essential public function, but their powers are not unlimited. Like every other exercise of government authority, police conduct must be supported by law.
The decisions in Kuru v State of New South Wales and Romani v State of New South Wales provide important reminders of that fundamental principle.
Kuru v State of New South Wales
In Kuru, police attended a residential unit after receiving a report of a domestic argument. The police treated the report as a potentially violent domestic incident.
Mr Kuru initially permitted the officers to enter and look around the premises. However, after the officers had entered, he repeatedly directed them to leave.
They did not do so.
The police remained inside the premises for longer than was reasonably necessary for them to leave. An altercation followed, and Mr Kuru was arrested.
The matter ultimately came before the High Court of Australia.
The central issue was straightforward. Having initially entered with consent, were the police entitled to remain after that consent had been expressly withdrawn?
The High Court held that they were not.
Consent provided the original lawful basis for the police entry. Once that consent was clearly withdrawn, the police were required to leave within a reasonable time unless they had some separate statutory or common law authority to remain.
They could not continue to occupy the premises merely because they had not finished making inquiries or because they considered it operationally convenient to remain.
The High Court also rejected the proposition that the police had a general common law power to remain for the purpose of preventing a breach of the peace in circumstances where no continuing or imminent breach justified their presence.
The significance of Kuru is often misunderstood. The case does not suggest that an occupier can require police to leave when they are executing a valid warrant, exercising an applicable statutory power, responding to an emergency or taking lawful steps to prevent an imminent breach of the peace.
It confirms that police authority must have an identifiable legal source.
A lawful entry does not provide police with an indefinite right to remain.
Consent can be withdrawn. Once withdrawn, the legal position changes.
Romani v State of New South Wales
The decision in Romani concerned police officers entering a rural property in August 2021 while investigating information about a possible gathering or protest during the COVID-19 restrictions.
The property displayed signs stating that it was private property and that entry without permission constituted trespass. The signage expressly included police.
Despite those signs, two police officers entered the property without a warrant and without some other lawful authority entitling them to do so.
The occupier had therefore done more than withdraw consent after entry. She had made it clear, before entry occurred, that members of the public, including police officers, were not invited onto the property.
The Supreme Court found that the officers had trespassed.
The State was ordered to pay general, aggravated and exemplary damages, together with interest. The total judgment was approximately $18,334.
That award is significant. It demonstrates that unlawful police entry is not merely a technical or academic breach. Trespass is actionable, and damages may be awarded to recognise the invasion of a person’s right to the possession and privacy of their property and, where appropriate, to mark the Court’s disapproval of the conduct.
The police officers in Romani may have wished to speak with the occupier and investigate what they believed might occur at the property. That investigative purpose did not itself create a power of entry.
Police cannot convert a desire to make inquiries or otherwise known as a "fishing expedition", into lawful authority to enter private land.
Operational convenience is not a warrant.
Suspicion is not necessarily a statutory power.
A police uniform does not displace the law of trespass.
The distinction between the cases
Kuru and Romani concern different factual situations.
In Kuru, the police initially entered with permission. The entry became unlawful when permission was withdrawn, and the officers failed to leave within a reasonable time.
In Romani, the occupier had expressly excluded entry before the police entered. The signs on the property negated any implied invitation or licence that might otherwise have permitted a person to approach the residence for the ordinary purpose of communicating with the occupier.
The cases therefore address two stages of the same legal question.
First, was the police entry lawful?
Secondly, even if the entry was initially lawful, did the police continue to possess lawful authority to remain?
Those questions must be considered separately.
A person may consent to police entering for a limited purpose. That does not necessarily authorise a search, an inspection of the whole property or an indefinite police presence.
My opinion is that you should never invite a police officer onto your private property unless they can identify a specific power for entry. There is nothing wrong or unlawful in asking them to prove their authority, and if they get their nose out of joint, then you know they don't have any power. And if they threaten you with a search warrant, then its confirmed, they have no fundamental right of entry; call them out on it. Take them to proof.
Similarly, the fact that police are permitted to approach an ordinary front door does not mean they can ignore locked gates, fences, signs or other conduct that clearly withdraws the usual implied permission to enter.
Police powers must be identified, not assumed
The starting point should always be to identify the precise source of the asserted police power.
Was entry authorised by a warrant?
Was there informed and voluntary consent?
Was there a statutory power of entry?
Were police responding to an emergency?
Was there an actual or imminent breach of the peace?
Did the legislation authorise the officers not only to enter, but also to remain and perform the particular act undertaken?
It is not enough to say that the officers were carrying out police duties. The existence of a police duty does not automatically create a corresponding power to enter private property.
Police may have a legitimate reason for wanting to speak with someone, investigate an allegation or inspect an item. That does not necessarily mean they have lawful authority to enter the person’s home, business or rural property to do so.
The purpose may be legitimate while the method remains unlawful.
Practical importance
These principles extend well beyond the facts of Kuru and Romani.
They are relevant to fi****ms and weapons compliance inspections, bail compliance checks, domestic violence investigations, rural property attendances, regulatory inspections, searches, seizures and other situations where police enter or remain on privately occupied premises.
A particularly important issue arises where an occupier initially cooperates with police but later becomes uncomfortable with the scope of the attendance.
Consent is not necessarily permanent.
It may be limited.
It may be conditional.
It may also be withdrawn.
Once consent is withdrawn, police must either leave within a reasonable time or be able to identify some independent lawful authority entitling them to remain.
The mere fact that police have already entered does not resolve the question.
The rule of law applies to everyone.
These decisions should not be misunderstood as encouraging confrontation with police.
A person should not obstruct officers who are executing a valid warrant or exercising a lawful statutory power. Disputes about the legality of police conduct are usually better addressed through legal proceedings rather than physical resistance at the scene.
However, respect for police does not require the community to accept that police power is unlimited.
The rule of law requires citizens to comply with lawful police powers. It equally requires police officers to remain within the authority conferred upon them.
Kuru and Romani confirm a simple but important proposition:
Police officers do not acquire a general right to enter or remain on private property merely because they wish to investigate, ask questions or complete an operational task. Their authority must come from consent, a warrant, the common law or legislation. Where no lawful authority exists, their presence may constitute trespass.**
That is not anti-police.
It is the rule of law.
That is why it is critical that if the police turn up at your door and say "We've received a complaint about you.." That loaded question may impact whether they can remain or must leave.
It is critical to receive legal advice when dealing with the police. If they turn up at your door, then they have already made decisions. You cannot appeal to their sympathies; they do not care.
Disclaimer: This article contains general legal information only and does not constitute legal advice. The existence and scope of any police power will depend upon the facts, the applicable legislation and the purpose for which police entered or remained on the property.
I have been practising law for over two decades, and I specialise in Criminal, Wills, and Family Law.
