MATICH -v- EGAN [2000] WASCA 368

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 368
Case No:	SJA:1103/2000	Heard:	24 OCTOBER 2000
Coram:	SCOTT J	Delivered:	28/11/00
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	BRETT ROBERT MATICH DAVID BENEDICT AIDEN EGAN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Driving offences Refusing a preliminary test A breath analysis test Road Traffic Act Issue as to identity of driver Grounds of appeal established No miscarriage of justice
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act, s 66, s 67(2) and s 67A(1)
Case References:	Ellis v Warren (1983) 1 MVR 177 Hurst v Ninyett (1992) 16 MVR 397 Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 Rolfe v Bennett (1988) 6 MVR 481

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : MATICH -v- EGAN [2000] WASCA 368 CORAM : SCOTT J HEARD : 24 OCTOBER 2000 DELIVERED : 28 NOVEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : SJA 1103 of 2000 BETWEEN : BRETT ROBERT MATICH

Appellant

AND

DAVID BENEDICT AIDEN EGAN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Driving offences - Refusing a preliminary test - A breath analysis test - Road Traffic Act - Issue as to identity of driver - Grounds of appeal established - No miscarriage of justice

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act, s 66, s 67(2) and s 67A(1)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr B S Hanbury

Respondent : Mr M A G Jenkin

Solicitors:

Appellant : Beau Hanbury

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Ellis v Warren (1983) 1 MVR 177
Hurst v Ninyett (1992) 16 MVR 397

Case(s) also cited:

Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386
Rolfe v Bennett (1988) 6 MVR 481

(Page 3)

1 SCOTT J: The appellant was charged on complaint with two offences, namely:

1 That on 28 February 1999 at Duncraig, he failed to comply with the requirements of a member of the Police Force, made pursuant to s 66 of the

Road Traffic Act 1974

, ("the

Road Traffic Act

") namely, to provide a sample of his breath for a preliminary test contrary to s 67A(1) of the

Road Traffic Act.

2 That on the same day and at the same place, the appellant failed to comply with the requirements of a member of the Western Australian Police Force made pursuant to the provisions of s 66 of the Road Traffic Act to provide a sample of his breath for analysis contrary to s 67(2) of the Road Traffic Act.

2 The facts of the matter were that on the date in question police were operating random breath testing facilities from what is commonly called a "Booze Bus" in Duncraig. A police officer, Sergeant Lee, noticed…

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 Matich v Egan

Details

AGLC: Matich v Egan [2000] WASCA 368
Case: [2000] WASCA 368
Decision Date: 28 NOVEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Matich v Egan arose before the court as an appeal against a conviction for refusing a preliminary breath analysis test. The appellant, Matich, was charged with an offence under the Road Traffic Act for not submitting to a breath test administered by a police officer. The respondent, Egan, was the police officer who conducted the test. The appeal centred on the issue of whether the officer had correctly identified the appellant as the driver of the vehicle, a critical factor in the enforcement of the law. The court was tasked with determining whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to an issue with the identification of the driver.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the officer's identification of Matich as the driver was sufficient to justify the demand for a breath test. The court had to consider whether the identification process adhered to legal standards and if there was any doubt regarding Matich's identity that could have affected the legality of the demand for the test. Additionally, the court examined whether the failure to identify the driver correctly constituted a miscarriage of justice and warranted the dismissal of the charges against Matich.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the officer's identification of Matich as the driver was adequate for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act. The court held that there was no substantial doubt about Matich's identity and that the process followed by the police officer was legally sound. The court determined that the grounds of appeal did not establish a miscarriage of justice, as the identification was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of the law. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction against Matich.

In light of the court's findings, it ordered that the appeal be dismissed. The conviction for refusing a preliminary breath analysis test was therefore affirmed. The court's decision underscored the importance of proper identification procedures in enforcing road traffic laws and maintained that, in this case, the legal standards were met.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.