PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal – From final order of Magistrates’ Court – Order striking out charge as a nullity – Not final – Magistrates’ Court Act 1989, s.92(1).
ROAD TRAFFIC – Breath analysis certificate – Whether may be excluded in discretion where no notice given under s.58(2) of Road Safety Act1986 - Police advising against blood test after certificate produced – Whether public policy discretion or general unfairness discretion available.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Appellant/ Cross-respondent
Mr. G.J.C. Silbert
Ms. K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent/ Cross-appellant
Mr. P. Reynolds
Voitin Walker Davis
BATT, J.A.:
At 12.58 a.m. on 19 September 1998 the respondent, Andrew Gordon Moore, was stopped by police at Port Melbourne while driving a motor vehicle. A preliminary breath test pursuant to s.53 of the Road Safety Act 1986 indicated the presence of alcohol in his blood. He told Senior Constable Timothy John Hansen (“the informant”) that he had consumed about half a dozen stubbies of full strength beer between 7.30 p.m. and midnight just past. A breath test of the respondent was conducted by Senior Constable Steele, an authorised operator of a breath analysing instrument, and four certificates of analysis of breath stating a blood alcohol concentration of 0.074% and stating the time of the test as “01:26 hrs EST” were produced and signed by him. One of them was handed to the informant and another to the respondent.
More than nine months later, on 28 July 1999, two charges were filed by the informant against the respondent as defendant in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria at Melbourne. They were (with slight editing):
(1)that at Port Melbourne on 19 September 1998 the respondent drove a motor vehicle while more than the prescribed concentration of alcohol, being 0.05 grams per 100 millilitres of blood, was present in his blood contrary to s.49(1)(b) of the Road Safety Act; and
(2)that at the same place and date the respondent did within three hours after driving a motor vehicle furnish a sample of breath for analysis by a breath analysing instrument pursuant to s.55(1) of the Road Safety Act and the result of the analysis recorded or shown by the breath analysing instrument indicated that more than the prescribed concentration of alcohol, being .05 grams per 100 millilitres of blood, was present and the concentration of alcohol indicated by the analysis to be present in his blood was not due solely to the consumption of alcohol after driving or being in charge of the motor vehicle (B.A.C…
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 DPP v Moore
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
DPP v Moore [2003] VSCA 90
Case
[2003] VSCA 90
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal was from a decision of the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria which struck out a charge against the appellant for driving with a prohibited level of alcohol in his breath. The respondent was the Director of Public Prosecutions. The matter came before the court on appeal from an order that had the effect of nullifying a charge against the appellant. The legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrates' Court had the authority to strike out a charge as a nullity when the appeal was from an order that was not final in nature. The court examined whether the Magistrates' Court Act 1989, section 92(1), permitted such an order when the appeal was not from a final order. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether a breath analysis certificate could be excluded under the Road Safety Act 1986 when no notice was given as required by section 58(2) and whether the public policy discretion or general unfairness discretion applied in circumstances where the police advised against a blood test after the certificate was produced.
The court found that the Magistrates' Court did not have the power to strike out a charge as a nullity in this context. It held that the appeal was not from a final order as required by the Magistrates' Court Act 1989, section 92(1). Therefore, the order made by the Magistrates' Court was a nullity. Regarding the breath analysis certificate, the court held that the discretion to exclude evidence under section 58(2) of the Road Safety Act 1986 was not available when no notice was given. The court emphasised that the discretion to exclude evidence was not a general unfairness discretion but was specifically tied to the circumstances outlined in the statute. The police advising against a blood test after the certificate was produced did not invoke the general unfairness discretion. The court concluded that the Magistrates' Court should have considered the public policy discretion when deciding whether to admit the breath analysis certificate, but it had not done so correctly in this case.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the order of the Magistrates' Court be quashed, and the matter be remitted to the Magistrates' Court for further consideration in accordance with the court's reasons. The court also directed that the Magistrates' Court consider the evidence and the applicable legal principles, including the public policy discretion, in deciding whether to admit the breath analysis certificate.