SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
GEISTER v POLICE
[2008] SASC 177
Judgment of The Honourable Justice White
4 July 2008
MAGISTRATES - APPEALS FROM AND CONTROL OVER MAGISTRATES - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
MAGISTRATES - JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE GENERALLY - PROCEDURE - THE HEARING - EVIDENCE AND COURSE OF TRIAL - VOIRE DIRE EXAMINATION
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - ERROR OF LAW - PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW - FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS FOR DECISION - ADEQUACY OF REASONS
Magistrates Appeal - Road Traffic Act 1961 s 47B - conviction for having the prescribed concentration of alcohol in blood - objection to admissibility of breath analyser print-out - allegation that breath analysis operator influenced appellant against obtaining an analysis of a blood sample - unfairness discretion - objection determined as part of substantive trial - whether voir dire should have been conducted - magistrate preferred the evidence of the breath analysis operator - nothing said to dissuade appellant from exercising blood sample rights - whether adequate reasons given as to preference of one witness over another - appeal dismissed.
Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 47A, s 47B, s 47K; Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 1999 (SA) reg 9, referred to.
Papps v Police (2000) 77 SASR 210; Gikas v Police (1999) LSJS 301, distinguished.
R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247; R v Power (2003) 141 A Crim R 203, discussed.
Kohler v Barrett (1991) 56 SASR 523; R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159; R v Lobban (2000) 77 SASR 24; DPP v Moore (2003) 6 VR 430; Robin v Police (2002) 81 SASR 253; Police v Fountaine (1999) 74 SASR 26; AK v Western Australia (2008) 82 ALJR 534; R v McKenzie [2001] SASC 279; R v C, AP [2006] SASC 334; Allison v Police [2005] SASC 447; R v Barrowman (2007) 96 SASR 294; Tucker v Police (2004) 89 SASR 135; Gannon v Police (2005) 93 SASR 289; Zaronias v Papaiani [2002] NSWCA 207; Phillips v Arnold [2008] TASSC 6; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118, considered.
WORDS AND PHRASES CONSIDERED/DEFINED
"Inadequate reasons", "Unfairness discretion"
GEISTER v POLICE
[2008] SASC 177Magistrates Appeal
WHITE J : The appellant appeals against his conviction for a contravention of s 47B of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) (RTA). The magistrate was satisfied that the appellant had driven his car on Park Terrace at Bowden on 21 May 2006 while there was present in his blood the prescribed concentration of alcohol as defined in s 47A of the RTA.
The appellant was stopped at a random breath test station. A breath analysis revealed that the concentration of alcohol in his blood was 0.182 grams in 100 millilitres of blood. The…
Continue reading GEISTER v Police
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- GEISTER v Police [2008] SASC 177
- Case
- [2008] SASC 177
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue in this appeal was whether the magistrate should have conducted a voir dire examination to determine the admissibility of the breath analyser print-out. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the magistrate provided sufficient reasons for preferring the evidence of the breath analysis operator over that of the appellant. The appellant argued that the magistrate did not adequately explain why the evidence of the breath analysis operator was more credible, nor did he address the appellant's contention that the officer had influenced him against obtaining a blood sample.
The Supreme Court found that the magistrate's decision to prefer the evidence of the breath analysis operator was within the magistrate's discretion and did not require a detailed explanation. The court held that when a decision depends on the assessment of witness credibility, detailed reasons are not necessary. The court further found that the magistrate's reasons were adequate in that he clearly outlined why he found the breath analysis operator credible and why the appellant's evidence was not as reliable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the magistrate's decision.
The Supreme Court's final order was to dismiss the appeal brought by the appellant against his conviction under the Road Traffic Act 1961. The court found that the magistrate's assessment of the evidence was sound and that the reasons provided were sufficient for the decision made. The Supreme Court did not order a new trial or any other remedy for the appellant.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: WHITE J
The magistrate concluded his assessment of the evidence of Snr Constable Petts and of the defendant with the following:I found Petts to be a good witness. I am satisfied he was simply mistaken as to which was the relevant subsection and conceded his error when it was drawn to his attention. I am satisfied he is a very experienced breath analysis operator and I was left with no doubt after hearing his evidence that he did not say the words, or similar, attributed to him by the defendant and his partner as they were leaving the van.Turning to the defendant’s evidence. While I could not be critical of his demeanour in the witness box and bearing in mind that his evidence was given on oath I find the possibility of Constable Petts using the words attributed to him to be so remote as to not be a reasonable possibility. As I have already said I accept the evidence of Petts and reject the defendant’s evidence in relation to the words he attributed to Petts outside the van.Consideration The appellant submitted that the magistrate had not given adequate reasons for his conclusion that his wife was not a reliable witness generally. It was submitted further that the magistrate had not explained how his finding that she was unreliable on two particular issues affected his assessment of her credibility or reliability on the critical question of whether Snr Constable Petts had made the statement attributed to him. It was also submitted that the magistrate had not given adequate reasons for the rejection of the appellant’s own evidence. The obligation of judicial officers to give adequate reasons for their decisions is well-known.[7] The extent of the reasons required varies according to the circumstances of the individual case and the issue then being decided. The increasing occurrence of criminal trials conducted by a judge sitting without a jury has led to more detailed consideration of the obligation of judicial officers to give reasons. But it has been recognised for some time that when the resolution of an issue in a case depends solely on the judge’s or magistrate’s assessment of the credibility of the respective witnesses, detailed reasons for the preference of one witness over another are not required. In R v Keyte the obligation of a judge sitting without a jury to give reasons for the verdict was considered. Doyle CJ, with whom Wicks J agreed, said that he did not accept that it was necessary for a judge sitting without a jury:to provide a detailed explanation for the decision to prefer the evidence of one witness to another, and for the conclusion of satisfaction of guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence of that witness, at least when the relevant decision rests substantially upon the impression made by the witness when giving evidence.[8]Earlier, Doyle CJ had agreed with the statement of Kirby P in Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd that the law does not require a trial judge’s “tedious examination of detailed evidence or a minute explanation of every step in the reasoning process that leads to the judge’s conclusion”.[9][7] AK v Western Australia [2008] HCA 8 at [89]; (2008) 82 ALJR 534 at 553-4 per Heydon J.[8] [2000] SASC 382 at [56]; (2000) 78 SASR 68 at 81.[9] (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 at 259.