Rutkowski v Director of Public Prosecutions

Rutkowski appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the District Court which had dismissed his appeal against a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained from a breath analysis machine.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the evidence of the breath analysis reading was admissible, given that the machine had not been calibrated in accordance with the requirements of the relevant legislation at the time of the analysis. Specifically, the court had to consider the effect of a failure to comply with the prescribed calibration procedures on the admissibility of the breath analysis result.

The Court of Appeal held that the calibration requirements were mandatory and that a failure to comply with them rendered the breath analysis reading inadmissible. The court reasoned that the purpose of the calibration requirements was to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the breath analysis machine. If these requirements were not met, the machine could not be presumed to be functioning correctly, and therefore, the evidence it produced could not be relied upon. The court applied the principle that statutory requirements for the admissibility of evidence must be strictly adhered to.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered that the appellant be acquitted.