Platsis v Garrow

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, brought by the applicant, Platsis, against the respondent, Garrow. The dispute centres on the lawfulness of a police campaign, known as the "reduce impaired driving" campaign, which involved randomly stopping motorists in Queensland. The primary purpose of these stops was to detect drivers under the influence of alcohol, but police also used the opportunity to check driver's licences and the condition of vehicles.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the random stopping of vehicles and subsequent breath testing, as conducted under this campaign, was lawful under the provisions of the *Traffic Act* (Qld). Specifically, the applicant argued that the campaign contravened section 16A(2)(a) of the Act, which governs when a police officer may request a breath test. This section requires reasonable grounds for suspicion that a person has committed an offence related to alcohol or has committed any other offence against the Act within the preceding two hours.

The applicant contended that the *Traffic Act* does not permit random breath testing and that section 16A(2)(a) necessitates a pre-existing suspicion based on reasonable grounds. The Full Court, however, had apparently divided the police actions into two parts: the random stopping of vehicles, which it considered authorised by other sections of the *Traffic Act* (sections 35 or 39), and the subsequent breath testing. The Full Court's reasoning suggested that the breath testing itself was not random, as it occurred after a lawful stop, and that the necessary suspicion for breath testing could arise after the vehicle had been stopped.