Murphy v Police

In the case of Murphy v Police, the appellant was convicted of failing to comply with reasonable directions given by a police officer at a random breath testing station. This offence is contrary to section 47E(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1961. The appellant successfully provided one valid sample of breath but failed to provide a second sufficient sample on three successive occasions. The appellant appealed against the conviction on several grounds, including the Magistrate's failure to properly assess the evidence and the erroneous drawing of an inference from the appellant's failure to discuss his medical condition with the police at the time of the breath test. The Supreme Court of South Australia heard the appeal and found that the Magistrate's errors in approach and analysis were significant enough to warrant the setting aside of the conviction and the dismissal of the complaint. The Court substituted its view for that of the Magistrate, finding that the appellant had discharged the onus of establishing the defence under section 47E(4) of the RTA.

The legal issues in this case centred around the interpretation of the evidence and the application of the burden of proof. The appellant argued that he had good cause for not complying with the reasonable directions given by the police officer due to his pre-existing medical condition. The Court had to determine whether the appellant had made out the defence under section 47E(4) of the RTA and whether the Magistrate erred in his assessment of the evidence. Additionally, the Court needed to consider whether the complaint was invalid due to a failure to indicate what it was to which the appellant was required to submit.

The Supreme Court of South Australia held that the appeal should be allowed, the conviction set aside, and the complaint dismissed. The Court found that the Magistrate failed to properly assess the evidence, particularly in relation to the appellant's medical condition. The Magistrate's suggestion that the appellant's treating specialist was not completely objective in his opinion was unfounded. The Court also noted that the Magistrate did not have sufficient regard to the chronology of the medical investigation into the appellant's health problems. Furthermore, the Magistrate erred in drawing an impermissible inference from the appellant's failure to discuss his medical condition with the police. The Court concluded that if the Magistrate had not made these errors of approach and analysis, it was highly likely that he would have found that the appellant had discharged the onus of establishing the defence under section 47E(4) of the RTA. Therefore, the Court substituted its view for that of the Magistrate, finding that the appellant had discharged the onus of establishing the defence. The Court also dismissed the complaint on the independent ground that it failed to aver what it was to which the appellant was required to submit, as it charged no offence known to the law.