Police v Lester

The case of Police v Lester involves an appeal by the police against the dismissal of a charge against the respondent, Damian Lester, for failing to comply with a police officer's reasonable directions to submit to an alcotest. The matter was heard in the South Australian Court of Appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the respondent's conduct and actions constituted a refusal to comply with a reasonable direction to submit to an alcotest under s 47E(3) of the Road Traffic Act (1961) (SA).

The court considered whether the conversation between the police officer and the respondent amounted to a reasonable direction, and whether the respondent's refusal to comply with this direction and subsequent actions constituted a failure to comply. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the prescribed oral advice was necessary at the roadside given the respondent's conduct, and whether the defence under s 47E(4)(ab) was applicable. The respondent had argued that the offence was not properly particularised and that the appeal involved new arguments not presented at trial.

The court held that the direction to submit to an alcotest was lawful and reasonable, and that the respondent refused to comply by his conduct and actions. The court found that the elements of the offence were satisfied, and that no defence was available. The offence was complete at the time of the refusal at the roadside. The court concluded that the appellant was not arguing new points on appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the magistrate's decision. The respondent was convicted of the charge under s 47E(3) of the Road Traffic Act (1961) (SA).

The court's decision hinged on the respondent's refusal by conduct and actions to comply with the reasonable direction to submit to an alcotest, which constituted a failure to comply with the law. The court emphasised the importance of complying with police directions at the roadside and the respondent's conduct in refusing to participate in the testing process. The court found that the respondent's actions prevented the matter from proceeding to the next stage of giving specific directions for the performance of the test. The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the magistrate was set aside, resulting in the respondent being convicted of the charge.