Police v Paterson - [2009] NTMC 6

CITATION: Police v Paterson [2009] NTMC 006

PARTIES: ROBERT KARENA GORDON

DYLAN JAMES PATERSON

TITLE OF COURT: Court of Summary Jurisdiction

JURISDICTION: Justices Act (NT); Traffic Act (NT)

FILE NO(s): 20819570

DELIVERED ON: 3 March 2009

PUBLISHED: 11 March 2009 by email to the legal representatives for the parties

DELIVERED AT: Nhulunbuy

HEARING DATE(s): 8 October 2008, 11 & 27 November 2008, 6 January 2009; written submissions 13 January 2009; 3 March 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Jenny Blokland CM

CATCHWORDS:

TRAFFIC OFFENCES – ADMISSIONS – VOLUNTARINESS – DISCRETION

Police Administration Act (NT) s 139(c)
Traffic Regulations (NT) reg 9

The Queen v Emily Jako, Theresa Marshall and Maris Robinson [1999] NTSC, Mildren J
Azar v The Queen (1991) 56 A CrimR 414
R v Smith (1992) 58SR491

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Prosecutor: Mr Jones / Ms McMahon
Defendant: Mr Foster / Mr Baker

Solicitors:
Prosecutor: ODPP (Summary Prosecutions)
Defendant: Ward Keller

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID number: [2009] NTMC 006
Number of paragraphs: 28

IN THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION
AT NHULUNBUY IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. 20819570
[2009] NTMC 006

BETWEEN:

ROBERT KARENA GORDON
Complainant

AND:

DYLAN JAMES PATERSON
Defendant

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Delivered 3 March 2009)

JENNY BLOKLAND CM:
Introduction
1. Mr Dylan Paterson (“The Defendant”) entered pleas of not guilty to one count of driving a motor vehicle while having a concentration of alcohol over the prescribed limit, (namely .272%) contrary to s19(2) Traffic Act(NT) and one count of driving a vehicle without wearing a seatbelt contrary to Rule 264 Australian Road Rules. The offences were alleged to have occurred on 27 March 2008. The level of alcohol in the Defendant’s blood at the time a blood sample was taken at Gove District Hospital is not in dispute. The Traffic Act (NT) certificate was admitted without objection (Exhibit P1). The Defendant disputes he was the driver and argues the prosecution cannot exclude beyond reasonable doubt, a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, namely that another person was driving the vehicle at the material time.
2. The prosecutor alleged that after the Defendant finished work for the day of 26 March 2008, he returned to his home and consumed one or two cans of rum and coke. He went to the “Walkabout” bottleshop, noticed one of his friend’s cars and decided to enter the public bar of the Walkabout Tavern where he consumed five drinks. He then went to 15 Feldeg Avenue Nhulunbuy and shared a bottle of rum with a friend. It is alleged that shortly after 2:30am he drove a White Toyota Hilux. It is alleged he turned left onto Inala Road through the intersection of Chippis Road where he mounted the kerbing of Chippis Road, drove into a parkland, veered to the right and eventually collided with a tree. It is alleged the Defendant was thrown forward striking the passenger’s side windscreen, injuring his forehead and nose. Neighbours called for assistance and police attended. Police noted the Defendant smelt heavily of alcohol. Evidence the Defendant…

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 Paterson

Details

AGLC: Police v Paterson [2009] NTMC 6
Case: [2009] NTMC 6
Decision Date: 3 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Police v Paterson, the defendant, Dylan James Paterson, contested charges of driving while over the legal alcohol limit and driving without a seatbelt. The incidents were alleged to have occurred on 27 March 2008. The central issue was whether the defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offences. The defendant claimed that another person could have been driving the vehicle and fled the scene, presenting a reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence. The court had to determine whether the prosecution could exclude beyond reasonable doubt the possibility that someone else was driving.

The court examined the voluntariness and admissibility of the defendant's statements to police at the accident scene, where he allegedly admitted to being the driver. The court concluded that while the defendant was in a state of de-facto custody, his statements were voluntary and should be considered. The court found that the lack of a formal caution did not render the statements inadmissible, as the primary concern at the scene was public safety and ensuring the defendant received medical attention. The court also noted that the offences did not carry a maximum penalty sufficient to require the application of specific statutory caution provisions.

After considering all the evidence, including the observations of witnesses, the condition of the vehicle, and the defendant's injuries, the court found the prosecution had met its burden of proof. The compelling evidence from witnesses who saw the defendant alone in the vehicle, combined with the physical evidence and expert opinion, led the court to conclude that the defendant was the driver. The court rejected the defendant's hypothesis that another person could have been driving and left the scene.

In summary, the court found the defendant guilty of both charges. Sentencing submissions were scheduled for a later date.

Orders