RAFFERTY -v- SAMMILLER [2003] WASCA 181

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 181
Case No:	SJA:1049/2003	Heard:	31 JULY 2003
Coram:	EM HEENAN J	Delivered:	15/08/03
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	EMMA RAFFERTY LINDA LOUISE SAMMILLER
Catchwords:	Road traffic Road Traffic Act 1974, s 64(1) Driving with percentage of alcohol in blood exceeding 0.08 per cent Blood analysis result admissible if taken within four hours of driving Controversy over time of driving Standard of proof for establishment of the time of driving Circumstantial evidence
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974, s 64(1)
Case References:	Chamberlain v The Queen [No 2] (1984) 153 CLR 521 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 77 ALJR 989 Gibbons v Oliver [1969] WAR 112 Norden v Miller (1985) 3 MVR 163 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 Casson v Johnston (1995) 12 WAR 1; 21 MVR 196 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Grbic v Pitkethly (1992) 38 FCR 95 Lee v R (1998) 195 CLR 594; 157 ALR 394 Smithers v Andrews [1978] Qd R 64

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : RAFFERTY -v- SAMMILLER [2003] WASCA 181 CORAM : EM HEENAN J HEARD : 31 JULY 2003 DELIVERED : 15 AUGUST 2003 FILE NO/S : SJA 1049 of 2003 BETWEEN : EMMA RAFFERTY

Appellant

AND

LINDA LOUISE SAMMILLER

Respondent

Catchwords:

Road traffic - Road Traffic Act 1974, s 64(1) - Driving with percentage of alcohol in blood exceeding 0.08 per cent - Blood analysis result admissible if taken within four hours of driving - Controversy over time of driving - Standard of proof for establishment of the time of driving - Circumstantial evidence

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974, s 64(1)

Result:

Appeal allowed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms L M Ellery

Respondent : Mr M A G Jenkin

Solicitors:

Appellant : McKenzie Lalor

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Chamberlain v The Queen [No 2] (1984) 153 CLR 521
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 77 ALJR 989
Gibbons v Oliver [1969] WAR 112
Norden v Miller (1985) 3 MVR 163
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573

Case(s) also cited:

Casson v Johnston (1995) 12 WAR 1; 21 MVR 196
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Grbic v Pitkethly (1992) 38 FCR 95
Lee v R (1998) 195 CLR 594; 157 ALR 394
Smithers v Andrews [1978] Qd R 64

(Page 3)

1 EM HEENAN J: On 17 April 2003 the appellant, Emma Rafferty, was convicted in the Court of Petty Sessions of Southern Cross of an offence contrary to s 64(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1974, namely, that on 9 November 2002 at Yilgarn Shire she drove a motor vehicle, registered No 1AJE 091 on a road, namely, Great Eastern Highway,…

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 Rafferty v Sammiller

Details

AGLC: Rafferty v Sammiller [2003] WASCA 181
Case: [2003] WASCA 181
Decision Date: 15 AUGUST 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Rafferty versus Sammiller was heard in the Court of Appeal. Rafferty, the appellant, contested the conviction for driving with an alcohol level exceeding the legal limit. The conviction was based on a blood analysis result that was taken four hours after the driving event in question. The central issue in the case was the admissibility of the blood analysis result, given the time lapse between the driving and the test. The court had to determine whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the time of the driving event and whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction.

The court examined the statutory provisions under the Road Traffic Act 1974, particularly section 64(1), which stipulates the legal alcohol limit for driving. The court focused on whether the blood analysis result was admissible within the statutory four-hour window. It was necessary to establish the precise moment of the driving event to ascertain the admissibility of the blood test results. The court also had to consider the standard of proof required for establishing the time of the driving event when there was a controversy over this fact.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish the time of the driving event to the required standard of proof. The court held that without a clear and precise determination of the moment of driving, the blood analysis result could not be admitted as evidence. Consequently, the court concluded that the conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and allowed the appeal. The conviction was quashed, and the case was remitted for further proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.