Police v Hall

The appeal in Police v Hall was brought by the Police against a decision of a Magistrate who excluded the evidence of a breathalyser test result from the trial of Mr Hall, who had been charged with driving with a prescribed concentration of alcohol in his blood. The issue for the court was whether the Magistrate was correct to exclude the breathalyser evidence, and whether Mr Hall would receive a fair trial if the evidence was admitted. The court held that the Magistrate was correct to exclude the evidence because the breathalyser test result could not be rebutted due to the delay in taking a blood sample, and the exclusion of the evidence did not render the trial unfair. The court found that the statutory presumption of the accuracy of the breathalyser test result under s 47G(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) could not be rebutted because the only opportunity to do so had passed. The court noted that the delay in taking the blood sample was not attributable to Mr Hall, and that the hospital staff were dealing with more urgent cases. The court held that the exclusion of the breathalyser evidence did not render the trial unfair because the legislature had provided for proof of guilt in this manner.

The court's decision was based on the statutory framework provided by the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA), which provided for the admissibility of breathalyser evidence and the presumption of its accuracy in the absence of proof to the contrary. The court held that the only way in which Mr Hall could rebut the presumption was by proving the result of the analysis of the sample of blood that was taken from him, and by proving that when the result of that analysis was explained by expert evidence about alcohol elimination rates, the result of the blood analysis demonstrated not just that the concentration of alcohol in Mr Hall’s blood at the time of the breath analysis was less than that indicated by the breath analysing instrument, but that the difference was such as to lead to a conclusion that the breath analysing instrument had given “an exaggerated reading of the concentration of alcohol” present in Mr Hall’s blood. The court found that this was not possible in the circumstances of the case because the blood sample was taken too late, and the only opportunity to rebut the presumption had passed. The court held that the exclusion of the breathalyser evidence did not render the trial unfair because the legislature had provided for proof of guilt in this manner.
The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Magistrates Court for further proceedings.