Roger Hausmann v Garry Wayne Shute

Roger Hausmann (the appellant) appealed his conviction for failing to provide a breath sample to Garry Wayne Shute (the respondent), a police officer. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, constituted by Higgins CJ, Connolly and Lander JJ. The central dispute concerned whether the offence had been made out on the evidence, particularly in light of a hypothesis that the breathalyser tube may have been partially blocked.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had failed to provide a sufficient breath sample as required by the relevant legislation. This involved considering the effect of the defence's hypothesis regarding a potentially blocked tube on the prosecution's case and whether the magistrate had properly considered all the evidence in reaching their conclusion.

The Court reasoned that the magistrate had been entitled to find that the appellant had failed to provide a sufficient breath sample. The evidence indicated that the appellant had made a deliberate attempt to blow into the tube, but the device registered an insufficient sample. While the defence raised the possibility of a blocked tube, the Court found that the evidence did not support this hypothesis as a definitive explanation for the insufficient sample. The magistrate was entitled to weigh the appellant's actions and the device's readings against the speculative defence, and the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the prosecution's burden of proof.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed at first instance were confirmed.