Champion v Richardson - [2003] VSC 482

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 8476 of 2002

JOHN CHAMPION	Plaintiff
v
BRIDGITTE RICHARDSON	First Defendant
and
THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF VICTORIA	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	KELLAM J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	25 August 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 December 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Champion v Richardson and Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 482

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Drink-driving offences alleged – Magistrate ordering permanent stay of proceedings after blood sample held by hospital lost – Blood sample held by police destroyed before hearing of case – Whether or not the Magistrate erred in the exercise of her discretion in granting a permanent stay of the proceedings – Road Safety Act 1986 – ss.49(1)(b)(b), (5), 5b, 57(2), (4), (7), (7A) – Road Safety (General) Regulations 1999, r.205.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J.B. Saunders	The Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the First Defendant	Mr P.S. Reynolds	Guthrie & Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 2

The Relief Sought.............................................................................................................................. 2

Background......................................................................................................................................... 3

The reasons of the Magistrate for granting the permanent stay of proceedings................... 5

The Relevant Legislation.................................................................................................................. 6

The Informant’s Submissions.......................................................................................................... 9

The Submissions of the Defendant.............................................................................................. 11

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 16

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 15 May 2002, Senior Constable John Champion, the plaintiff in this proceeding (“the informant”) filed a charge and summons at the Frankston Magistrates' Court alleging that contrary to s.49(1)(g) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (“the Act”) the first named respondent, Brigitte Richardson (“the defendant”) on 17 October 2001 had a blood sample taken from her within three hours of driving and which upon analysis was found to exceed .05% of blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”). Section 49(5) of the Act provides that it is a defence to a charge under s.49(1)(g) of the Act for the person charged to prove that the result of the analysis of his or her blood sample was not a correct analysis. In addition, Brigitte Richardson was charged with driving a motor car whilst having a blood alcohol concentration of more than .05% contrary to s.49(1)(b) of the Act. The BAC alleged to have been found upon analysis was .354%.

The proceeding came on for hearing before a Magistrate sitting at Frankston Court on 8 October 2002. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel who then appeared for the defendant, made an application for an order permanently staying the proceedings on the basis that a sample of blood which had been taken from the defendant on 17 October 2001, and subsequently held by police had been destroyed by them, after analysis, and prior to the hearing of the proceeding.

The Magistrate granted the application for a permanent stay of the prosecution of the proceedings.

The Relief Sought

On 6 December 2002, by originating motion, the informant commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court pursuant to Order.56, seeking an order in the nature of certiorari or mandamus seeking to bring up and quash the…

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 Champion v Richardson

Details

AGLC: Champion v Richardson [2003] VSC 482
Case: [2003] VSC 482
Decision Date: 12 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Champion v Richardson, the defendant, Champion, faced charges related to drink-driving offences. The dispute centred around the admissibility of evidence, specifically a blood sample, which was central to the prosecution's case. The case was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. The prosecution argued that the defendant's blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit at the time of an incident, whereas the defendant contested the validity of the blood sample due to alleged mishandling and loss of evidence.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Magistrate had the authority to order a permanent stay of proceedings due to the loss of a blood sample by the hospital and the subsequent destruction of a blood sample held by the police. The court had to consider the provisions of the Road Safety Act 1986 and the Road Safety (General) Regulations 1999, particularly in relation to the admissibility of evidence under sections 49, 57, and regulation 205. The central issue was whether the Magistrate's decision to permanently stay the proceedings was justified given the circumstances surrounding the loss and destruction of the blood samples.

The court held that the Magistrate did not err in ordering a permanent stay of the proceedings. The reasoning was grounded in the necessity for a fair trial and the protection of the defendant's rights. Given the loss of the blood sample by the hospital and the subsequent destruction of the police sample, the court found that the prosecution could not provide a reliable and legally admissible blood sample. This outcome was consistent with the statutory provisions which require the preservation of evidence to ensure a fair trial. The court concluded that the circumstances warranted the exercise of the Magistrate's discretion to grant a permanent stay of the proceedings.

The final orders of the court included a permanent stay of the proceedings against the defendant, Champion. The court's decision was based on the premise that the integrity of the trial could not be maintained without the critical evidence of the blood sample, and thus, the defendant's right to a fair trial was upheld.

Orders