Police v Mercorella

In the case of Police v Mercorella, the appeal was against the dismissal of a complaint regarding the accuracy and completeness of the written statement provided to Mr. Mercorella following a breath analysis test. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the written statement given to Mr. Mercorella complied with the statutory requirements under section 47G(2) of the Road Traffic Act. This section mandates that a driver must be provided with a written statement specifying the concentration of alcohol in their blood and the date and time of the analysis as soon as practicable after a breath test.

The court needed to determine whether the statement given to Mr. Mercorella met these requirements. Mr. Mercorella had provided two breath samples, and the lower reading was 0.102 grams of alcohol in 210 litres of breath. The statement delivered to him included the lower reading, the date and time of the analyses, and additional details such as the location of the test and the names of the officers involved. The court examined whether the additional information included in the statement, beyond the statutory requirements, was sufficient to comply with the statutory mandate.

The court concluded that the statement provided to Mr. Mercorella did not fully comply with section 47G(2). While it contained the required information regarding the concentration of alcohol and the date and time of the analysis, it also included extraneous details that were not mandated by the statute. The court found that the presence of these additional details did not detract from the statutory compliance but rather emphasized the importance of adhering strictly to the legislative requirements. The court held that the statement, despite including the necessary information, failed to comply with the statutory mandate due to the inclusion of non-required details. Consequently, the dismissal of the complaint was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.