Martin v Police - [2015] SASC 41

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
MARTIN v POLICE
[2015] SASC 41
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Sulan
24 March 2015
TRAFFIC LAW - OFFENCES - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - ALCOHOL AND DRUG RELATED OFFENCES - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR OR A DRUG
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - WHEN NEW TRIAL REFUSED
The appellant was found guilty of one count of driving under the influence of a prescribed drug and one count of driving under the influence of a prescribed drug whilst holding a provisional licence. The issue at trial was whether the appellant had knowingly consumed the drugs. The Magistrate concluded that the appellant failed to satisfy her on the balance of probabilities that he did not know that he had consumed the drugs. The appellant appeals against the convictions on the grounds that the convictions were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.
Appeal dismissed.
Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 47BA(1)(a), s 47BA(2); Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s 81A(13), referred to.
R v Corish (2006) 96 SASR 207, discussed.
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298, considered.

MARTIN v POLICE
[2015] SASC 41
Magistrates Appeals: Criminal

SULAN J: The appellant and defendant, Kieran Martin, was found guilty by a Magistrate of driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of a prescribed drug, contrary to s 47BA(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA), and of driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of a prescribed drug whilst holding a provisional licence, contrary to s 81A(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA). The defendant pleaded not guilty to both charges. The defendant appeals against the convictions.
Background
On 10 March 2014, the night before the offence occurred, the defendant had been to the Grand Bar at Glenelg with three friends. They arrived at the hotel by taxi between 10 pm and 11 pm. The defendant left by taxi at between 2 am and 3 am on the following morning. The defendant gave evidence that he had consumed about ten drinks at the hotel, mainly vodka and orange juice and beer. He gave evidence that, on a number of occasions, he left his drink unattended either at the bar or on the table whilst he visited the bathroom or went outside for a cigarette. He said that no drugs were consumed that night.
On 11 March 2014, the defendant awoke at about midday and, later in the afternoon, drove to the Golden Grove Hotel where he met two friends. At the hotel, he and his friends played the poker machines. The defendant gave evidence that he only drank water, as he was driving. He said that he left his glass unattended on two occasions to visit the bathroom. He left the hotel at about 4 pm to drive both his friends to their home.
At about 4.45 pm, the defendant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Martin v Police

Details

AGLC: Martin v Police [2015] SASC 41
Case: [2015] SASC 41
Decision Date: 24 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Martin v Police was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The defendant, Martin, was charged with driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, contrary to section 62(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA). The defendant sought a new trial on the basis that the trial judge had improperly admitted evidence of a previous conviction for a similar offence. The trial judge had admitted the evidence under section 110 of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA), and the defendant argued that this was an abuse of the court's discretion.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had exercised his discretion to admit the previous conviction evidence in a manner that was unjust to the defendant. The court considered whether the evidence was relevant and whether its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect. The court also considered whether the trial judge had properly directed the jury on the purpose for which the evidence could be used. The court noted that the trial judge had provided a comprehensive direction to the jury on the proper use of the previous conviction evidence, and that the evidence was relevant to the issue of the defendant's state of intoxication at the time of the alleged offence.

The court held that the trial judge had not abused his discretion in admitting the previous conviction evidence. The court found that the evidence was relevant and that its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. The court also found that the trial judge had properly directed the jury on the proper use of the evidence. The court held that the defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the evidence and that a new trial was not warranted. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

The court did not make any specific orders in relation to the refusal of a new trial. However, the court did note that the defendant had the right to appeal to a higher court if they wished to do so. The court also noted that the defendant had the right to seek a review of the decision by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Orders