Jordan v Police

In the case of Jordan v Police, the appellant was convicted by a Magistrate of entering an intersection after the traffic light had turned red, in breach of s 79B of the Road Traffic Act and r 59 of the Australian Road Rules. The appellant appealed against his conviction to the court, arguing that the evidence obtained from a photographic detection device was insufficient to prove the offence and that the burden of proof for the defence should be beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant also contended that s 79B and r 51.01 of the Magistrates Court (Criminal) Rules offended against Chapter III of the Constitution and were invalid.

The court considered the standard of proof required for the defence under s 79B and found that the burden of proof was on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The court also dismissed the argument that s 79B and r 51.01 of the Magistrates Court (Criminal) Rules were unconstitutional, stating that the separation of powers doctrine does not exist in its classic form at the state level. The court concluded that the Magistrate had not erred in finding the offence proved and the defence not established.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant was upheld. The decision confirms that the standard of proof for the defence under s 79B is on the balance of probabilities, and that the Magistrates Court (Criminal) Rules do not infringe upon Chapter III of the Constitution. The court's decision reinforces the principle that Parliament may legislate to prescribe rules of evidence or procedure, and to cast a burden of proof on a defendant in relation to an element of an offence, without in any way infringing upon Chapter III.