Police v Wilson - [2024] ACTMC 21

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Police v Wilson
Citation:	[2024] ACTMC 21
Hearing Dates:	30 July 2024
Decision Date:	23 September 2024
Before:	Magistrate Temby
Decision:	See [137]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – ADMISSILITY – application to exclude evidence under section 138 of the Evidence Act 2011 – Driving offences – interpretation of sections 13A, 13D, 13E and 14 of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977
Legislation Cited:	Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 ss 8, 13A, 13D, 13E, 13G, 13H, 14, 14, 20 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 138 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 212 Legislation Act 2001 ss 139, 142 Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Legislation Amendment Act 2010 Road Transport (General) Act 1999, Dictionary Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Amendment Act 2014 Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) Ordinance 1977 s 8 Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) (Amendment) Ordinance 1982
Cases Cited:	Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 R v Daley (2002) 132 A Crim R 169 DDP (Vic) v Marjanevic (2011) 33 VR 440 Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54 at 74
Texts Cited:	Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety, May 1980, ‘Alcohol, Drugs and Road Safety’ Explanatory Statement, Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Amendment Bill 2013 The Australian Law Reform Commission Report (No 4), ‘Alcohol, Drugs and Driving’ Explanatory Statement, Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) (Random Breath Testing) Amendment Bill 2009
Parties:	Dean Leeson (Informant) Bradley Wilson ( Defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Services ( Defendant)
File Number:	CC 2023/7920

MAGISTRATE TEMBY:

Introduction

1․On 2 June 2023, Mr Wilson, the Defendant, was driving his motor bike up and down Appleford Circuit in Jacka. Mr Wilson lived on that street.
2․One of Mr Wilson’s neighbours complained to police about his conduct, which resulted in Detective Acting Sergeant Leeson (DAS Leeson) attending the location. He arrived at approximately 9.45 p.m. He was in an unmarked police vehicle.
3․DAS Leeson saw Mr Wilson driving his motor bike as described. Mr Wilson was not wearing a helmet and did not have his lights on, even though it was dark. Mr Wilson drove past DAS Leeson’s vehicle twice. DAS Leeson estimated that he saw Mr Wilson drive approximately 50 metres.
4․DAS Leeson activated his lights so that Mr Wilson would pull over, which he did. He stopped on the street outside his house and walked his bike up onto the nature strip outside his house.
5․DAS Leeson obtained Mr Wilson’s details. Despite this, Mr Wilson asked if he could go inside his house to obtain proof of his identity. DAS Leeson said that that was not necessary but did not stop him doing so. Mr Wilson returned around 45 seconds later with a proof of identity card.
6․DAS Leeson undertook certain enquiries of police indices with respect to Mr Wilson, which he confirmed through Police Operations. These enquiries revealed…

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 Wilson

Details

AGLC: Police v Wilson [2024] ACTMC 21
Case: [2024] ACTMC 21
Decision Date: 23 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Police v Wilson was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Wilson, was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, driving under the influence of a drug, and failing to provide a specimen for a drug test. The defendant made an application to exclude evidence under section 138 of the Evidence Act 2011, arguing that the evidence obtained by the police was obtained in breach of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977. The primary legal issues that the court had to determine were whether the evidence obtained by the police was admissible under section 138 of the Evidence Act 2011 and whether the police had complied with the provisions of sections 13A, 13D, 13E and 14 of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977.

The court considered the arguments put forward by both parties and examined the relevant statutory provisions. The court found that the police had complied with the requirements of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977, and that the evidence obtained was admissible under section 138 of the Evidence Act 2011. The court found that the police had acted reasonably in detaining Wilson for the purpose of conducting a drug and alcohol test and that the evidence obtained was relevant and probative to the charges brought against Wilson. The court rejected Wilson's application to exclude the evidence.

As a result of the court's decision, the charges against Wilson were not dismissed, and the evidence obtained by the police was admitted as evidence in the case. The final orders of the court were that the application to exclude evidence was dismissed, and the charges against Wilson were to proceed to trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [137]

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.