MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
PARTIES:
POLICE
(prosecution)
v
CATHERINE LILIAN MCCAGH
(defendant)
FILE NO/S:
MAG92240/09(6)
DIVISION:
Magistrates Court
PROCEEDING:
Charge
ORIGINATING COURT:
Magistrates Court at Innisfail
DELIVERED ON:
23 November 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Innisfail
HEARING DATE:
13 November 2009
MAGISTRATE:
Brassington J
ORDER:
Defendant is convicted
CATCHWORDS:
TRAFFIC LAW – OFFENCES – DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE – drinking after driving – is certificate proof of concentration of alcohol for a period of time
Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995(Qld), s 80(15)
Davies v Dorfler, ex parte Davies [1988] 2 Qd R 490
COUNSEL:
Moon (sgt) for prosecution
Mobbs for defendant
SOLICITORS:
Prosecution on their own behalf
Vandeleur & Todd for defendant
INTRODUCTION
At about 5pm on 3 May 2009, at Mourilyan, Les Sheehan was driving to his home when he saw a commodore off the side of the road in a ditch. Worried there had been an accident he checked the vehicle and found a woman he described as ‘slumped’ in the front seat. It is not disputed that this woman was the defendant Catherine McCagh.
Mr Sheehan, concerned that the woman had been drinking (he formed this opinion because of her slurred speech only) rang the police. Police did not come for some time and he saw the car drive off at about 5.30pm.
There had been no accident. Ms McCagh, with her friend Michael Clothier, had been driving to collect friends from fishing when she ran out of petrol. Mr Clothier had gone to get more petrol while Ms McCagh waited in the vehicle. When he returned she completed her errands, dropped Mr. Clothier back to his employment and drove to her home. She was not feeling well and went to bed.
The police did respond to Mr Sheehan’s call. Constables’ Seymour and Ahrens were directed to Mourilyan to investigate. They could find no car. They spoke to Mr. Sheehan and then travelled to 20 Mayflower Street Innisfail – the residence of Ms McCagh where they found a motor vehicle which Constable Seymour described as hot and had a front bumper injury. The time was 6.18pm.
The police knocked on the door and spoke to Ms McCagh’s son. Ms McCagh was roused from bed by her son and went to speak to police. The whole conversation was digitally recorded by Constable Seymour and a disc was tendered as an exhibit. The conversation is reproduced below in full as it has a significant bearing on the resolution of the factual disputes in this trial:[1]
Seymour: Catherine we know about what happened on Harbour Road
McCagh: What happened
Seymour: In relation to your car
McCagh: We ran out of petrol
Seymour: What happened there? Can you tell us about that
McCagh: ui
Seymour: Well I can smell liquor on your breath. How much have you hadMcCagh: Not much.. I’ve been sick as. I’m hot. Ui[1]The transcript is my own
Ahrens:Obviously you then haven’t had anything to drink since you came…
Continue reading Police v McCagh
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Police v McCagh [2009] QMC 6
- Case
- [2009] QMC 6
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining the admissibility of the breath analysis certificate in this context and whether it was sufficient to establish that the defendant was driving with a concentration of alcohol in their system above the legal limit. The primary legal question was whether the certificate, which indicated the concentration of alcohol at the time of the test, could be used as evidence to support a conviction for driving with an earlier concentration of alcohol above the legal limit.
The court found that the breath analysis certificate, while indicating the concentration of alcohol at the time of the test, did not provide sufficient evidence to infer the concentration of alcohol at an earlier time. The court concluded that the evidence did not meet the legal standard required to establish that the defendant was driving with an alcohol concentration above the legal limit. Consequently, the court dismissed the charge against the defendant.
The final orders of the court were that the defendant was convicted on the charge of driving with an alcohol concentration above the legal limit. The court found that the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction and dismissed the charge. The defendant was acquitted of the offence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Defendant is convicted
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.