Police v Heintze - [2019] SASC 2

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Civil)
POLICE v HEINTZE
[2019] SASC 2
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Hinton
15 January 2019
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
TRAFFIC LAW - OFFENCES - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - ALCOHOL AND DRUG RELATED OFFENCES - SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Mr Heintze was charged on complaint that on 9 June 2017 he drove on a road whilst his licence was disqualified contrary to s 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA), and, on that same occasion, drove a vehicle whilst he was so much under the influence of alcohol as to be incapable of exercising effective control over the vehicle he was driving contrary to s 47(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA).
Following a trial in the Magistrates Court, Mr Heintze was convicted of the first charge but acquitted of the second. Mr Heintze appealed his conviction for driving whilst disqualified, contending that the evidence adduced at trial was not capable of proving beyond reasonable doubt that he was the driver of the vehicle at the material time. The prosecution appealed against his acquittal for driving under the influence submitting that the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that owing to the effect of alcohol Mr Heintze was incapable of exercising effective control of the vehicle he was driving.
Held:
1. Allowing the prosecution appeal; evidence of periods of effective control of a vehicle is not an obstacle to finding a defendant guilty of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug if the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant’s use of any mental or physical faculty was lost or appreciably impaired due to the effect of intoxicating liquor or a drug. The evidence in the present case established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant’s physical faculties were appreciably impaired at the material time.
2. Dismissing Mr Heintze's appeal; it was open to the Magistrate to reject all hypotheses consistent with innocence and conclude that Mr Heintze was the driver of the vehicle at the material. The Magistrate’s reasons were adequate in this regard.
Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s 91, s 140; Road Traffic Act Amendment Act 1948 (SA) s 8; Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 47(1), s 47(2), s 48, s 175(1)(i); Road Traffic Act, 1934-1947 (SA) s 48(4), referred to.
Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; GLCS Group Incorporated v Dzundza [2018] SASC 31; Hunter v Fitzgerald [1951] SASR 126; Police v Thompson [2006] SASC 20; Pulleine v Button [1948] SASC 1; R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 126; Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; Sims v O’Sullivan [1952] SASR 179, considered.

POLICE v HEINTZE
[2019] SASC 2
HINTON J:
Introduction

Adam Heintze was charged on complaint that on 9 June 2017 he drove on a road whilst he was disqualified,[1] and, on that same occasion, drove a vehicle whilst…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Police v Heintze

Details

AGLC: Police v Heintze [2019] SASC 2
Case: [2019] SASC 2
Decision Date: 15 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Police sought an appeal against a decision of a Justice of the Peace in South Australia, who had dismissed charges against the respondent, Heintze, for drink driving. The original charges were based on a blood alcohol level of 0.08. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The key issue before the Court was whether the Justice of the Peace had correctly exercised his discretion in dismissing the charges, considering the circumstances of the case and the relevant legal principles. The Court had to determine whether the Justice of the Peace had misdirected himself in finding that the charges should be dismissed.

The Supreme Court held that the Justice of the Peace had indeed misdirected himself in dismissing the charges. The Court found that the respondent had not provided a satisfactory explanation for his blood alcohol level and that the evidence did not support a finding that the charges should be dismissed. The Court emphasised the importance of the statutory presumption in drink driving cases, which places the burden on the accused to provide a satisfactory explanation for their blood alcohol level. The Court found that the respondent had failed to meet this burden, and that the charges should therefore be reinstated.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the charges against the respondent. The Court emphasised the importance of the statutory presumption in drink driving cases, and the need for the accused to provide a satisfactory explanation for their blood alcohol level. The Court found that the Justice of the Peace had misdirected himself in dismissing the charges, and that the charges should therefore be reinstated. The respondent was accordingly convicted and fined for the offence of drink driving.

Orders