Director of Public Prosecutions v Riley

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Riley, the High Court heard an appeal regarding the exclusion of evidence obtained from a breath analysis under the Road Safety Act 1986. Riley was charged with driving a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit. The magistrate dismissed the charges after exercising the discretion to exclude evidence under Bunning v Cross. The magistrate found that the informant had acted excessively towards Riley, leading to the exclusion of the evidence. The legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate’s discretion to exclude evidence was correctly applied, and whether other factors could be relied on to enliven the discretion.

The court considered whether the magistrate’s decision to exclude the evidence was justified. It was noted that the informant's excessive conduct could be a factor, but the court examined if other factors were, or could be, considered to enliven the discretion. The court concluded that while the informant’s behaviour was a significant factor, the magistrate should have also considered other circumstances that may have affected the fairness of the proceedings. The court found that the discretion to exclude evidence under Bunning v Cross was indeed enlivened, but not properly exercised on the facts presented. The decision to exclude the evidence was not supported by a comprehensive consideration of all relevant factors.

The court allowed the appeal and quashed the decision of the magistrate, ordering a retrial. This meant that the original charges against Riley would be reconsidered in a new hearing, with the potential for the breath analysis evidence to be admitted. The court's decision emphasised the importance of a balanced and comprehensive approach when exercising the discretion to exclude evidence in such circumstances.