Legal Research
Cases
Li v Sandhu

Li v Sandhu

Case [2024] VCC 1242

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

This content is currently unavailable.

Details

AGLC: Li v Sandhu [2024] VCC 1242
Case: [2024] VCC 1242
Decision Date: 10 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Disqualified from driving in the State of Victoria for a period of 22 months. Fined $1,200 without conviction.

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.

Actions

Citations

Li v Sandhu [2024] VCC 1242

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

DPP v Piscopo [2011] VSCA 275
Citation 1 (Para 2)

…ly that the person must furnish a sample of their breath for analysis. A particular form of words is not required.[27] [27] DPP v Piscopo (2011) 33 VR 182, 11-23 [38]. 42The respondent’s case is that the s 55(1) requirement was made by Senior Constable Sandhu at the East Melbourne Police Station immediately prior t…
Impagnatiello v Campbell [2003] VSCA 154
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…evidence alone in my view falls short of what is required to prove ‘this essential element of the offence’.[11] [11] Impagniatello v Campbell (2003) 6 VR 416, 15-6 [32]. 24However, the respondent places considerable reliance on some notes completed by Senior Constable Sandhu in proof of this element. During the he…
Cook v Couacaud [2016] VSC 791
Citation 3 (Para 2)

…to furnish a sample of his breath in accordance with s 55(1). The authorities establish that it is a matter that must be proved.[26] [26] Cook v Couacaud (2016) 263 A Crim R 527. 41What is need to comply with s 55(1) is that the police officer must communicate unambiguously that the person must furnish a sample of their…
Rugolino v Howard [2010] VSC 590
Citation 4 (Para 3)

…he applicable regulations; and d)His evidence about the nature of his duties on booze buses.[39] [37] [2010] VSC 590. [38] Ibid [27]. [39] Ibid [31]. 60In this appeal, Senior Constable O’Dea gave evidence about: a)His training to operate breath analysing instruments;[40] b)Receiving an authorisation in the mail a…
Sirajuddin v Ziino [2005] VSC 418
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…on must prove to the criminal standard that the PBT was conducted using a prescribed device pursuant to s 53(1) of the RSA.[8] [8] Sirajuddin v Ziino (2005) 14 VR 689, 12 [42] and 14 [50]. 21Regulation 10(1) of the Road Safety (General) Regulations 2019 prescribes four different devices for the purposes of s 53 of…

AI Chat coming soon