BEATTIE -v- PRIME [2002] WASCA 111

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 111
Case No:	SJA:1023/2002	Heard:	30 APRIL 2002
Coram:	MILLER J	Delivered:	30/04/02
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Conviction set aside and matter remitted to Court of Petty Sessions for rehearing
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ANDREW JOHN BEATTIE JOEL ANDREW PRIME
Catchwords:	Offences Drink driving Breath analysis Consumption of alcohol after driving but before analysis Plea of guilty Matter raised with duty counsel Whether appellant should be entitled to have plea of guilty set aside
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 74(1), s 74(4)
Case References:	Beauglehole v Smith [1972] WAR 61 Minear v Rudrum [2001] WASCA 10 Norden v Miller (1985) 3 MVR 163 Whiteman v Keady (1993) 18 MVR 229; (1995) 21 MVR 447 Canale v Bayens [2001] WASCA 383 Duckrell v Lee [1972] WAR 48 Gibbons v Oliver [1969] WAR 112 Glover v Reyne [2001] WASCA 305 Price v Davies (2001) 120 A Crim R 183 Rowlands v Caporn [2001] WASCA 66

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : BEATTIE -v- PRIME [2002] WASCA 111 CORAM : MILLER J HEARD : 30 APRIL 2002 DELIVERED : 30 APRIL 2002 FILE NO/S : SJA 1023 of 2002 MATTER : Justices Act 1902

BETWEEN : ANDREW JOHN BEATTIE

Appellant

AND

JOEL ANDREW PRIME

Respondent

Catchwords:

Offences - Drink driving - Breath analysis - Consumption of alcohol after driving but before analysis - Plea of guilty - Matter raised with duty counsel - Whether appellant should be entitled to have plea of guilty set aside

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 74(1), s 74(4)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Conviction set aside and matter remitted to Court of Petty Sessions for rehearing

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M C Owens

Respondent : Ms D E Quinlan

Solicitors:

Appellant : Max Owens & Co

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Beauglehole v Smith [1972] WAR 61
Minear v Rudrum [2001] WASCA 10
Norden v Miller (1985) 3 MVR 163
Whiteman v Keady (1993) 18 MVR 229; (1995) 21 MVR 447

Case(s) also cited:

Canale v Bayens [2001] WASCA 383
Duckrell v Lee [1972] WAR 48
Gibbons v Oliver [1969] WAR 112
Glover v Reyne [2001] WASCA 305
Price v Davies (2001) 120 A Crim R 183
Rowlands v Caporn [2001] WASCA 66

(Page 3)

1 MILLER J: The appellant was charged in the Court of Petty Sessions at Bunbury that on 17 January 2002 at Waterloo he drove a motor vehicle registration number 7SR 077 on a road, namely, South West Highway, whilst under the influence of alcohol to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of such vehicle, contrary to the provisions of s 63(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1974. He appeared in the Court of Petty Sessions on 21 January 2002 and pleaded guilty to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Beattie v Prime

Details

AGLC: Beattie v Prime [2002] WASCA 111
Case: [2002] WASCA 111
Decision Date: 30 APRIL 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Beattie, was convicted of drink driving in the Court of Petty Sessions. The conviction arose from a breath test which indicated a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit. The appellant had consumed alcohol after driving but before the breath test was conducted. The matter was subsequently appealed to the higher court, arguing that the appellant should be entitled to have his plea of guilty set aside.

The central issue before the court was whether the appellant's plea of guilty should be set aside. The appellant argued that he should be permitted to challenge the admissibility of the breath test result due to the consumption of alcohol after driving but before the test was administered. This argument hinged on whether such consumption could affect the accuracy of the breath test result.

The court found that the appellant's consumption of alcohol after driving but before the breath test did not necessarily affect the accuracy of the test result. However, the court was of the view that the appellant should have the opportunity to challenge the admissibility of the breath test result. This was because the appellant had raised the matter with duty counsel, indicating that the issue was significant to his case. The court concluded that the appellant should be entitled to have his plea of guilty set aside to allow for this challenge. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Court of Petty Sessions for rehearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Conviction set aside and matter remitted to Court of Petty Sessions for rehearing

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.