Police v Prinse No. Scgrg-97-1706 Judgment No. S6567

In this case, the police appealed against the decision of a magistrate who dismissed two charges against the respondent, Prinse, but did not explicitly address the third charge. The appeal was heard by Bleby J, who allowed the appeal and quashed the magistrate's order dismissing the first two charges. The case involved Prinse being charged with driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, driving with a prescribed concentration of alcohol in his blood, and driving while disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence. The magistrate dismissed the first two charges, finding that the police officer had no justifiable reason to stop Prinse's car, and thus, the evidence obtained thereafter was inadmissible. The court had to decide whether the magistrate was correct in excluding the evidence based on the proper application of s42 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. The court found that there was nothing in the evidence to suggest that the exercise by Constable Baker of his powers under s42 of the Road Traffic Act was outside the course of his duty or that it was an improper exercise of his power. Therefore, the evidence was wrongly excluded by the magistrate, and the occasion for the exercise of a discretion under the principles stated in Bunning v Cross did not arise. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was referred back to the magistrate to continue with the hearing of all three counts and the costs of this appeal.