Police v Barber

The case of Police v Barber involved the respondent, Barber, who was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and driving without due care and attention. The case was heard in the South Australian District Court. The central legal issues were whether the respondent was in a state of automatism at the time of the alleged offence, and whether the evidence provided by the police officer regarding the respondent's blood alcohol concentration was admissible and reliable. The respondent claimed that she was not in control of her actions due to an involuntary state, possibly induced by alcohol consumption.

The court examined the evidence provided by Sergeant Clark, who had interacted with Barber during the incident. Sergeant Clark observed signs of intoxication and conducted a breath analysis which indicated a blood alcohol level above the legal limit. The court was required to determine the admissibility of this evidence, considering the type of breath analysis instrument used and its approval status under the relevant traffic legislation. Additionally, the court needed to assess the credibility of the respondent's claim of automatism based on the totality of the evidence presented, including expert medical testimony and the respondent's behaviour during and after the incident.

The court concluded that the Magistrate's acceptance of the respondent's automatism defence was not supported by the evidence. The court found that the Drager 7110 instrument used for breath analysis was not an approved device under the relevant statute, rendering the breath test results inadmissible. Furthermore, the court noted that the respondent's behaviour, such as her deliberate responses to Sergeant Clark and her self-recrimination during the journey to the police station, indicated she was aware of her actions and their potential consequences, which was inconsistent with a state of automatism. Consequently, the court found that the prosecution had established a case against the respondent, and the decision to acquit on the charge of driving with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit was incorrect.

In light of the findings, the court ordered a new trial to reassess the charges against the respondent based on the admissible evidence. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory requirements for breath analysis instruments and the need for a coherent and consistent narrative from the respondent to successfully claim automatism.