Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 (TAS)

In the Magistrates Court of Tasmania, the defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle while alcohol was present in his breath or blood in a concentration greater than the prescribed concentration, a contravention of section 6 of the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 (TAS). The defendant argued that the sample taken from him was not properly obtained, claiming that the approved operator failed to provide him with a written statement indicating the concentration of alcohol in his breath, as required by section 11 of the Act. The court needed to decide whether the failure to provide the written statement rendered the evidence of the blood sample inadmissible, and if so, whether this was a breach of the defendant's right to a fair trial under the Australian Constitution.

The court held that the failure to provide the written statement was a procedural irregularity but did not render the blood sample inadmissible. The court reasoned that while section 11 required the approved operator to provide the defendant with a written statement immediately after the breath analysis, this requirement was not jurisdictional. The court relied on the provisions of section 24 of the Act, which allows for the admission of evidence of a breath analysis even if the written statement was not provided, so long as the analysis was carried out by an approved operator using a properly functioning breath analysing instrument. Furthermore, the court noted that the statutory presumptions under section 23 of the Act applied, deeming the concentration of alcohol in the blood sample as the actual concentration at the time of the relevant act of driving. The court concluded that the procedural irregularity did not prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial, as the evidence was still admissible and reliable. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced accordingly.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the fine and serve the term of disqualification as specified in the Act. The court also noted that the procedural irregularity would be considered in any subsequent proceedings.