Matthew Hall v Anthony Vucak - [2012] ACTMC 6

MATTHEW HALL v ANTHONY VUCAK
[2012] ACTMC 6 (28 September 2012)

CRIMINAL LAW – driving with the prescribed concentration of alcohol – admissibility of blood sample taken at hospital from a person in custody – Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) – requirements of s 11(4) – relationship between ss 15 and 15AA.

Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) ss 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 15AA 19
Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) ss 126, 127, 132
Legislation (Republication) Act 1996 (ACT) ss 13, 14, 15, 19

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 138, 142
Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) Ordinance 1977 (ACT)

Rollings v Barter [2003] ACTSC 57
Parker v Comptroller-General of Customs (2009) 83 ALJR 494
R v Salem (1997) 96 A Crim R 421
Sydney Municipal Council v Campbell [1925] AC 338
Warringah Shire Council v Pittwater Provisional Council (1992) 26 NSWLR 491
Telstra Corp Ltd v Hurstville City Council [2002] FCA 385
Haneef v Minister for Immigration (2007) 161 FCR 40
R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98
R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137

Australia, Law Reform Commission, Evidence, Report No 38 (1987)

No. CC 1495 of 2012

Magistrate: Mossop
Magistrates Court of the ACT

Date: 28 September 2012

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE         )
  )          No. CC 1496 of 2012
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY               )

BETWEEN:MATTHEW HALL
Informant

AND:ANTHONY VUCAK
Defendant

ORDER

Magistrate:  Mossop
Date:  28 September 2012
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

(a)The defendant is guilty of charge CC2012/1495.

The defendant, Anthony Vucak is charged with contravening s 19(1) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (“the Act”). It is alleged in the charge that he, being a repeat offender, on 6 October 2011, having been the driver of a motor vehicle on a road, did have within the relevant period a level four concentration of alcohol in his blood.
The proceedings were first before the Court on 28 March 2012 when the defendant pleaded not guilty. I heard the evidence and submissions in the matter on 24 September 2012.
Ms Rosenberg appeared for the prosecution. Mr Bevan appeared for the defendant.
The prosecution called oral evidence from Constable Matthew Hall, Gemma Haines, Rhiannon Scott, Constable Theresa McCarron and Joanna O’Reilly. The prosecution also tendered some documentary evidence. Exhibit 1 was a series of 10 photographs. Exhibit 2 was a form recording responses by the defendant to a request to take his blood at The Canberra Hospital. There were also three documents which were marked for identification as MFI 1, 2 and 3 and I reserved my decision on their admissibility. I will deal with that issue later in these reasons.
The only evidence called by the defendant was evidence given by his mother, Anka Vucak on the voir dire in relation to the admission of MFIs 1, 2 and 3.
In case there was any doubt about it, I make it clear that in dealing with this matter I give myself general directions as to…

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 Matthew Hall v Anthony Vucak

Details

AGLC: Matthew Hall v Anthony Vucak [2012] ACTMC 6
Case: [2012] ACTMC 6
Decision Date: 28 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew Hall was charged with driving with the prescribed concentration of alcohol in his body. The case before the court was to determine the admissibility of a blood sample taken from the defendant at a hospital while he was in custody. The legal issues centred on the interpretation and application of sections 11(4), 15 and 15AA of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT). Specifically, the court had to consider whether the blood sample complied with the legislative requirements and whether there was a valid connection between the provisions of sections 15 and 15AA.

The court held that for a blood sample to be admissible under section 11(4) of the Act, it must be taken in accordance with the specified procedures. The court examined the circumstances under which the sample was collected, including whether it was taken within the allowable timeframe and whether the defendant's consent was obtained. Furthermore, the court explored the relationship between sections 15 and 15AA, determining if the legislative intent was to create a cohesive framework for handling blood samples in driving-related offences. The court found that while section 15 provides the general authority for taking blood samples, section 15AA outlines specific conditions that must be met to ensure the sample's admissibility. The court concluded that the sample in question did not meet the statutory requirements due to procedural shortcomings.

In light of the court's findings, the admissibility of the blood sample was rejected. Consequently, the evidence derived from this sample could not be used against the defendant. The court's ruling underscored the importance of adhering to statutory procedures when collecting blood samples to ensure the integrity of the legal process. The decision reinforces the need for strict compliance with legislative mandates to maintain the reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings.

Orders