Gosden, R.B. v Billerwell, M.R

Gosden, R.B. v Billerwell, M.R. was an appeal against a conviction for driving with a prescribed concentration of alcohol in the blood. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appellant, Gosden, challenged the validity of a breathalyzer test conducted by the respondent, Billerwell, arguing that the breathalyzer had not been properly calibrated with a solution of standard alcohol prior to the test. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, but Gosden appealed this decision.

The primary legal issue in this appeal was the proper construction of a notice issued by the Minister under the Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) Ordinance 1977. The notice purported to approve the type of instrument used for breath analyses by referencing what was on the label affixed to the instrument. Gosden argued that this notice was not a valid exercise of power conferred on the Minister by the Ordinance, and that the breathalyzer had not been properly calibrated as required. The court had to determine whether the notice was a valid exercise of power, and whether there were other grounds upon which the validity of the breathalyzer test could be challenged.

The court found that the notice was not a valid exercise of power under the Ordinance, as it did not properly specify the requirements for the approval of the type of instrument. The court also found that there were no other grounds upon which the validity of the breathalyzer test could be challenged, as there was no evidence that any substance was found in the breathalyzer other than the solution of standard alcohol. The court held that the appellant's conviction should be set aside, and the charge dismissed. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, as well as the costs of the appeal to this Court, other than the costs of the second day of hearing.

In summary, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, as well as the costs of the appeal to this Court, other than the costs of the second day of hearing.