Sims v Elmer - [2019] TASSC 21

[2019] TASSC 21

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Sims v Elmer [2019] TASSC 21

PARTIES:  SIMS, Jeremy Lance
  v
  ELMER, Michelle

FILE NO:  LCA 610/2018
DELIVERED ON:  22 May 2019
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  27 November 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Traffic Law – Offences – Particular offences – Alcohol and drug related offences – Tasmania – Driving with prescribed illicit drug in blood and other offences – Meaning of honest and reasonable belief –Applicant was charged with one count of driving a motor vehicle with a prescribed illicit drug present in his blood and gave evidence that he held an honest and reasonable belief that such drugs were not present in his blood – Magistrate accepted that he honestly held such a belief, but was not satisfied that it was a reasonable belief in the circumstances – Magistrate misapplied the burden of proof when considering the question of whether the belief was reasonable – Evidential onus on the accused had been satisfied – Onus was on the prosecution to satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that the belief was not held on reasonable grounds.

Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 (Tas), s 6A.
Hindrum v Lane [2014] TASFC 5, applied.
L v The Queen [1985] TASSC 44, referred to.
Aust Dig Traffic Law [1159]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  E Hughes
             Respondent:  E Bill
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Rae & Partners
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2019] TASSC 21
Number of paragraphs: 19

Serial No 21/2019
File No 610/2018

JEREMY LANCE SIMS
v SENIOR CONSTABLE MICHELLE ELMER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

22 May 2019

The applicant was charged on complaint with one count of driving a motor vehicle with a prescribed illicit drug present in his blood, contrary to s 6A of the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 ("the Act"). The complaint was heard by Magistrate McKee. The applicant did not challenge the prosecution evidence that he had been driving the vehicle in question, and that illicit drugs, namely methylamphetamine and amphetamine were present in his blood at the time. He gave evidence that he had not consumed any such drugs, and that he held an honest and reasonable belief that such drugs were not present in his blood. The magistrate accepted that he honestly held such a belief, but concluded that he was not satisfied that it was a reasonable belief in the circumstances. Accordingly, he concluded that the applicant had not satisfied his evidential onus with respect to the question of an honest and reasonable mistake of fact and found the applicant guilty of the charge.
The applicant has moved this Court to review the finding of guilt. The grounds of review include a ground which asserts that the learned magistrate erred in law by determining that the applicant had failed to discharge his evidential onus, and thereby failed to consider whether the prosecution had discharged its onus to prove guilt beyond…

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 Sims v Elmer

Details

AGLC: Sims v Elmer [2019] TASSC 21
Case: [2019] TASSC 21
Decision Date: 22 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sims v Elmer involved the applicant, Sims, who was charged with driving a motor vehicle with a prescribed illicit drug present in his blood. Sims gave evidence that he held an honest and reasonable belief that such drugs were not present in his blood at the time of the offence. The matter was heard and determined in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. The central issue before the court was whether Sims' belief that the prescribed drug was not present in his blood was honest and reasonable, and if the burden of proof was correctly applied in determining this issue.

The court had to decide if the magistrate correctly applied the burden of proof when considering the reasonableness of Sims' belief. The legal question was whether the magistrate correctly understood that the evidential onus was on Sims to establish that he held an honest and reasonable belief, and thereafter, whether the prosecution bore the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this belief was not held on reasonable grounds. The court examined whether the magistrate misapplied the burden of proof and whether this misapplication affected the outcome of the case.

The court found that the magistrate accepted that Sims honestly held the belief that the illicit drug was not present in his blood but was not satisfied that this belief was reasonable in the circumstances. The court determined that the magistrate misapplied the burden of proof by not recognising that once the evidential onus was satisfied by Sims, the onus shifted to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Sims' belief was not held on reasonable grounds. The court quashed the conviction on the basis of this error. The case was remitted to the Magistrates Court for re-hearing.

The court's final orders included quashing the conviction and remitting the case to the Magistrates Court for re-hearing, ensuring that the correct burden of proof was applied in considering the reasonableness of Sims' belief.

Orders