Police v DUNSTALL

In Police v Dunnstall, the appellant challenged the Magistrate's decision to exclude evidence obtained from a blood test, arguing that the circumstances did not warrant the exercise of the unfairness discretion in favour of the respondent. The dispute arose after the respondent was stopped by a mobile traffic patrol and subsequently tested positive for alcohol, leading to a breath analysis and blood test at Noarlunga Hospital. The blood samples collected by Dr Klima were later deemed denatured and unsuitable for alcohol analysis, with the respondent arguing that the denaturing was most likely due to an insufficient blood sample taken. The respondent contended that the Magistrate's decision to exclude the blood test evidence was erroneous as it did not meet the specific criteria for unfairness as previously determined by the Full Court.

The court was required to determine whether the circumstances surrounding the collection and analysis of the blood sample were sufficiently unfair to warrant excluding the evidence under the discretion available in such cases. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the denaturing of the blood samples constituted a relevant unfairness that rendered the trial unfair, aligning with the precedent set by the Full Court in similar cases. The court also needed to consider whether the respondent's actions or the police's handling of the blood samples contributed to the denaturing and whether this affected the fairness of the trial.

The court examined the evidence provided and concluded that while the general circumstances were unfair, they did not reach the level of unfairness required to exclude the blood test evidence. The court noted that the denaturing of the blood samples was likely due to the insufficient blood sample taken, but this did not equate to a relevant unfairness that would render the trial unfair. The court found that the Magistrate's decision to exclude the evidence was not supported by the specific criteria established in previous cases, leading to the conclusion that the evidence should not have been excluded.

In light of the above, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a retrial. The court held that the circumstances did not warrant the exercise of the unfairness discretion in favour of the respondent, and thus the evidence from the blood test should have been considered in the trial. The court's decision underscored the need for a clear alignment with established legal criteria when exercising discretionary powers in such cases.