Lester v Police

The appeal concerned the interpretation and application of provisions within the *Road Traffic Act 1961* (SA) relating to roadside breath testing. The appellant, Lester, was stopped by police for a random breath test and subsequently arrested. The central dispute revolved around whether the police had lawfully required Lester to submit to an alcotest and whether the subsequent procedures, including the provision of prescribed oral advice, were conducted in accordance with the Act. The matter came before the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether the police had the power to give preliminary directions to a motorist for the purpose of conducting an alcotest, and whether non-compliance with such directions constituted an offence. The court also had to consider whether the police had sufficiently informed the appellant of the requirement to submit to an alcotest, and whether the directions given to provide a breath sample were valid and reasonable. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the significance of the appellant's behaviour, including feigning unconsciousness, on the police's obligations. Finally, the court had to interpret the requirements of section 47E(4)(ab) of the Act, particularly concerning the possession of approved apparatus when discharging obligations under that section and the necessity of providing prescribed oral advice.

The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, reasoned that police possess the power to give preliminary directions to motorists to facilitate an alcotest, and non-compliance with subsequent lawful directions constitutes an offence. The court found that the police had adequately informed the appellant of the requirement to submit to an alcotest and that the direction to provide a breath sample was valid and sufficiently specific. The appellant's refusal to comply with the direction to exhale into the alcometer enlivened the obligations under section 47E(4)(ab). The court held that the appellant's disruptive behaviour, including feigning unconsciousness, justified the police in taking him to the hospital and providing the prescribed oral advice there. Crucially, the court determined that while an approved apparatus must be possessed when making the initial requirement for an alcotest, this is not a statutory requirement when discharging the obligations under section 47E(4)(ab). The court emphasised the importance of providing clear advice regarding the consequences of non-compliance, but noted that this obligation does not apply where a driver's positive action frustrates compliance. The court concluded that the police had discharged their obligations under section 47E(4)(ab) at the hospital, and the appellant had failed to comply, leading to the conviction.