Police v Maher

The respondent was charged with an offence under section 47B of the Road Traffic Act, which prohibits driving a motor vehicle on a road with a proscribed concentration of alcohol present in the blood. The respondent had asked the police officer whether the breath analysing instrument was faulty or likely to be faulty, to which the police officer replied that the instrument "is accurate." The respondent sought to exclude the evidence obtained from the breath analysing instrument, arguing that the officer's response was likely to dissuade the respondent from having a blood test and that the magistrate should have exercised an unfairness discretion. The court considered whether there were any grounds upon which the magistrate should have exercised the unfairness discretion and whether the magistrate should have exercised the discretion to exclude evidence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the police officer's response was likely to dissuade the respondent from having a blood test, and if so, whether there were any grounds upon which the magistrate should have exercised an unfairness discretion. The court also considered whether the magistrate should have exercised the discretion to exclude evidence. The court held that the police officer's response was not likely to dissuade the respondent from having a blood test, as the respondent had already indicated a willingness to have a blood test. The court also held that there were no grounds upon which the magistrate should have exercised an unfairness discretion, as the respondent had not shown that the police officer's response was misleading or deceptive. The court further held that the magistrate was not required to exercise the discretion to exclude evidence, as the evidence obtained from the breath analysing instrument was reliable and accurate.

The court found that the police officer's response did not dissuade the respondent from having a blood test, as the respondent had already indicated a willingness to have a blood test. The court held that the magistrate was not required to exercise an unfairness discretion, as the respondent had not shown that the police officer's response was misleading or deceptive. The court also held that the magistrate was not required to exclude the evidence obtained from the breath analysing instrument, as the evidence was reliable and accurate. The court dismissed the respondent's appeal and upheld the conviction. The court did not make any orders.