LASSCOCK -v- SEIDNER [2013] WASC 94
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASC 94 | |
| 21/03/2013 | |||
| Case No: | SJA:1076/2012 | 13 FEBRUARY 2013 | |
| Coram: | HALL J | 13/02/13 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | AMY LOUISE LASSCOCK JOHN DAVID SEIDNER |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Traffic offence Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol Application for adjournment to obtain expert evidence 'mouthwash defence' Whether refusal of adjournment resulted in a miscarriage of justice Limited relevance of evidence as to effects of alcohol Details of proposed evidence not provided |
Legislation: | Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 63, s 66, s 68, s 70 |
Case References: | Addiscott v Reeman (2002) 36 MVR 538 Casson v Johnston (1995) 12 WAR 1 Daurat v Chammasian (2000) 30 MVR 197 Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 Greer (1992) 62 A Crim R 442 House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 Leary v The Queen [1975] WAR 133 Lyster v Kemp [2010] WASC 47 Myers v Myers [1969] WAR 19 Pallett v Paul [2007] WASC 290 Rozario v Rowllinson [2006] WASC 181; ;(2006) 46 MVR 198 Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473 The State of Western Australia v Sillich [2011] WASCA 135 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
JOHN DAVID SEIDNER
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : CHIEF MAGISTRATE S A HEATH & MAGISTRATE M D WHEELER
File No : PE 54304 of 2011
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Traffic offence - Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol - Application for adjournment to obtain expert evidence - 'mouthwash defence' - Whether refusal of adjournment resulted in a miscarriage of justice - Limited relevance of evidence as to effects of alcohol - Details of proposed evidence not provided
Legislation:
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 63, s 66, s 68, s 70
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : No appearance
Respondent : Ms C A Lakewood
Solicitors:
Appellant : No appearance
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Addiscott v Reeman (2002) 36 MVR 538
Casson v Johnston (1995) 12 WAR 1
Daurat v Chammasian (2000) 30 MVR 197
Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292
Greer (1992) 62 A Crim R 442
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
(Page 3)
Leary v The Queen [1975] WAR 133
Lyster v Kemp [2010] WASC 47
Myers v Myers [1969] WAR 19
Pallett v Paul [2007] WASC 290
Rozario v Rowllinson [2006] WASC 181
Continue reading Lasscock v Seidner
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- LASSCOCK -v- SEIDNER [2013] WASC 94
- Case
- [2013] WASC 94
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Lasscock v Seidner was before the court, where the defendant sought an appeal against a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. The central issue in the case was whether the refusal of an adjournment to allow the defendant to obtain expert evidence related to the so-called'mouthwash defence' resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The defendant argued that the evidence, if admitted, would have shown that alcohol consumption via mouthwash could have led to a positive breathalyser test result, thus affecting the fairness of the trial.
The court considered whether the proposed expert evidence was relevant and necessary to the defence. It was noted that the details of the proposed evidence were not provided in the application for adjournment, which made it difficult to assess its relevance. The court examined whether the denial of an adjournment to obtain such evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice, taking into account the limited relevance of evidence regarding the effects of alcohol. Ultimately, the court determined that the refusal of the adjournment did not result in a miscarriage of justice.
The court held that the proposed expert evidence was of limited relevance, and its absence did not undermine the fairness of the trial. The court further found that the details of the proposed evidence were not sufficiently provided to assess its potential impact. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the defendant's conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol was upheld. The court also refused the defendant leave to appeal to a higher court.
The court considered whether the proposed expert evidence was relevant and necessary to the defence. It was noted that the details of the proposed evidence were not provided in the application for adjournment, which made it difficult to assess its relevance. The court examined whether the denial of an adjournment to obtain such evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice, taking into account the limited relevance of evidence regarding the effects of alcohol. Ultimately, the court determined that the refusal of the adjournment did not result in a miscarriage of justice.
The court held that the proposed expert evidence was of limited relevance, and its absence did not undermine the fairness of the trial. The court further found that the details of the proposed evidence were not sufficiently provided to assess its potential impact. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the defendant's conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol was upheld. The court also refused the defendant leave to appeal to a higher court.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
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
Full text does not contain this section.