Dickenson v Fletcher

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Dickenson v Fletcher revolves around a conviction issued by Magistrate Mr Dockray against the applicant, Dickenson. Dickenson was convicted of two charges: driving a motor vehicle with alcohol present in his blood at a concentration greater than the prescribed limit under section 6(1) of the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970, and driving while disqualified under section 19A(1) of the same Act. Dickenson challenges the conviction on the grounds that the magistrate erred in finding a prima facie case based on the prosecution's evidence. Specifically, Dickenson argues that it was not proven that the breath analysis instrument used met the criteria of a "breath analysing instrument" as defined by the Act.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the approval notice issued by the Governor, which identified the type of breath analysis instrument by the expression "Alcotest 7110", was a valid approval of a type within the meaning of the Act. The court considered various authorities, both from other states and territories as well as from Tasmanian cases. The court found that the approval notice was valid and that the section 25(2) of the Act provided prima facie evidence that the instrument was of an approved type and in proper working order, unless such evidence was thrown into doubt by other evidence. The court held that the approval notice was sufficient to describe a type of apparatus and that it was up to the defendant to prove otherwise. Therefore, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

Regarding the sentence imposed, Dickenson argued that the four-week imprisonment term was manifestly excessive. The court found that the magistrate was justified in imposing a short term of imprisonment due to Dickenson's history of repeated offenses related to driving under the influence and while disqualified. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the remainder of the application.