Director of Public Prosecutions v Jamie Michael Clear

The case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Jamie Michael Clear involved the defendant, Clear, who was charged with an offence under section 328C(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which mandates the provision of blood and urine samples for analysis. The dispute centred on whether an individual who is legally required to provide both blood and urine samples could choose to provide only one of these samples instead. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court had to decide whether the statutory language allowed for such a selective provision of samples. Specifically, the court needed to interpret whether the use of the word "and" in the statutory provision was mandatory or permissive. The prosecution argued that the requirement to provide both samples was mandatory, whereas Clear contended that the word "and" should be interpreted as permissive, allowing for the choice between providing either a blood or a urine sample.

The court concluded that the statutory language, specifically the use of "and," was indeed mandatory and not permissive. It was held that the statute required the provision of both blood and urine samples for analysis. The court found that interpreting the word "and" as permissive would lead to an absurd result, which was not in line with legislative intent. Consequently, Clear's argument that he could choose to provide either a blood or a urine sample was rejected. The court's decision was based on the principle that statutes requiring multiple actions should be interpreted as mandating all actions unless there is clear evidence to suggest otherwise.

The final orders of the court were that Clear was required to comply with the statutory mandate by providing both a blood and a urine sample for analysis. The court upheld the mandatory interpretation of the statutory language and dismissed Clear's argument that he could choose to provide only one type of sample.