McFarlane v Police

This matter came before the Full Court of South Australia on appeal from a decision of a single judge. The appellant, McFarlane, sought permission to appeal against a magistrate's decision concerning offences related to an unregistered and uninsured motor vehicle. The appellant also sought to adduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact, as established in *Proudman v Dayman*, was available to the appellant in the circumstances of the case, and whether the proposed fresh evidence should be admitted. The court was required to consider the impact of amendments to the *Motor Vehicles Act* on the availability of such defences.

The Full Court reasoned that amendments to sections 9 and 102 of the *Motor Vehicles Act* had introduced a series of specific statutory defences for drivers of unregistered or uninsured vehicles, based on mistakes of fact in defined circumstances. The Court concluded that by providing these detailed statutory defences, Parliament had "covered the field," leaving no room for the implication of the *Proudman v Dayman* defence in situations not expressly contemplated by the legislation. Consequently, the appellant could not rely on this defence. Furthermore, the Court found that the proposed fresh evidence, relating to the appellant's eyesight, was unlikely to qualify as fresh evidence and, in any event, was not relevant given the unavailability of the *Proudman v Dayman* defence. The Court also noted that even if the appellant had misread the registration document, the error would not have been considered reasonable given his failure to seek assistance and his ability to read part of the document.

Accordingly, the Full Court refused permission to appeal and dismissed the interlocutory application.