Police v Head

In Police v Head, the police appealed against a Magistrate's decision to find the respondent's offence of driving with a prescribed concentration of alcohol in blood to be trifling. The respondent drove home from a friend's neighbouring farm with a blood alcohol reading of 0.086 over a distance of three and a half kilometres on a little-used dirt road. He pleaded guilty to one count of the offence and applied for the offence to be declared trifling. The Magistrate found the offence to be trifling and imposed a fine of $900 with a one-month licence disqualification. The police argued that the Magistrate erred in finding the offence to be trifling.

The legal issues in this case centred on the interpretation and application of Section 47B(3)(b) of the Act, which allows for a reduction in the disqualification period if the offence is considered trifling. The court had to determine whether the Magistrate's decision to find the offence trifling was correct, considering the nature of the road, the respondent's blood alcohol reading, and the lack of readily available alternative transportation. The court also had to consider whether the offence was atypical and if the Magistrate took into account all relevant considerations in making his decision.

The court examined the Magistrate's decision and found that he had considered the unique factual circumstances of the offence, particularly the nature of the road and its location. The court noted that the road was little-used, with no traffic present or likely to be present, and that the respondent's blood alcohol reading was low. The court also acknowledged that a three and a half kilometre walk would not be something the respondent would likely undertake. The court held that the Magistrate had correctly applied the principles set out in Siviour-Ashman v Police and subsequent cases, which require the court to consider the purpose of Section 47B, the nature of the offence, and whether the offence was a normal or typical example of its type. The court concluded that the offence was atypical and found no error of fact or law in the Magistrate's decision.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Magistrate's decision that the offence was trifling. The court found that the Magistrate had appropriately considered the unique factual circumstances of the case and had not erred in finding the offence trifling. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the original decision of the Magistrate be affirmed.