Gannon v Police

In the matter of Gannon v Police, the appellant, Gannon, appealed against his convictions for driving with a prescribed concentration of alcohol in his blood and failing to obey traffic lights, while being acquitted on the charge of exceeding the speed limit. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary legal issues were whether the Magistrate's reasons for accepting the police officer's evidence were adequate, and whether the belief of the breath analysis operator or the apprehending officer was relevant for the purposes of section 47E(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961.

The court found that the circumstances required an explanation for the acceptance of the police officer's evidence on one ground while holding reservations about his evidence on another. The Magistrate's reasons were deemed inadequate. It was held that it was the apprehending officer's belief that was relevant for the purposes of section 47E(1). Given that the conviction for the traffic light offence was set aside, there were no findings of fact as to the apprehending officer's state of mind. The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a retrial was ordered.

The court examined the evidence provided by Senior Constable Tellam, who testified about a conversation with Gannon following his vehicle being stopped. Gannon argued that the evidence should have been excluded due to the failure to administer a caution, delay in making notes, and not providing an opportunity to read and acknowledge the notes. However, the Magistrate did not consider these statements as admissions by Gannon and treated them as denials. As the Magistrate did not use the statements adversely to Gannon, the court did not need to conclude whether the Magistrate's refusal to exclude the evidence was in error.

Ultimately, the Magistrate's decision to convict Gannon of the traffic light offence while expressing doubt about the speeding charge led to an unsafe verdict and unsatisfactory reasoning. The conviction on Count 3 was set aside, and a retrial of that offence was ordered.