Spiros Chaousis v SA Police No. SCGRG 94/2091 Judgment No. 4933 Number of Pages 4 Vehicles and Traffic Offences Alcohol and Drug Related Offences (1995) 76 a Crim R 257 (1995) 64 Sasr 148 - [1995] SASC 4933

COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA OLSSON J

CWDS
Vehicles and traffic - offences - alcohol and drug related offences - Refusal to submit to breath test - appellant refused due to religious belief - whether religious belief good cause - belief not reasonable in the circumstances - appeal dismissed. Road Traffic Act 1961s47e. Bottomley v Symons (1982) 31 SASR 18 and Cserwinski v Hayes (1987) 47 SASR 44, applied.

HRNG ADELAIDE, 10 January 1995 #DATE 31:1:1995

Appellant: In person

Counsel for respondent: Mr S Gupta

Solicitors for respondent: Crown Solicitor (SA)

ORDER
Appeal dismissed.

JUDGE1 OLSSON J The appellant, who appeared in person, has appealed against his conviction, by a stipendiary magistrate, of an offence pursuant to section 47e of the Road Traffic Act ("the Act"). After a trial on oral evidence the learned magistrate found that, on 11 June, 1994 at Kings Park, the appellant, being a person who was required under the section to submit to an alcotest, refused to comply with all reasonable directions of a member of the police force in relation to this requirement.

2. Although there was some dispute at trial as to certain detailed narrative events, the learned magistrate correctly assessed that those facts which were critical to the prosecution were not in doubt. They may be summarised as follows:
    - At about 12.42 am on the date in question, police officers
    had established and were operating a random breath testing
    station on Goodwood Road at Kings Park.
    - At that time a motor vehicle, which was in fact being
    driven by the appellant, was seen to be approaching the
    station from the north.
    - When about 100 metres from the station the appellant's
    vehicle was seen to pull over to the kerb and stop. He
    alighted and walked onto the footpath.
    - The appellant was approached by one or more police
    officers and requested, on several occasions, to blow into a
    Lion Alcolmeter S-D2 equipment - being an apparatus
    approved, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, for the
    purpose of conducting alcotests.
    - He steadfastly refused to blow into the apparatus, his
    sole expressed reason being that his sabbath, or holy day,
    in accordance with his religious beliefs, had commenced at
    sunset on the preceding evening, and that it was improper
    for him to perform the task requested.
    - It was accepted by the learned magistrate and is not now
    in issue that what was said by the appellant represented his
    genuinely held religious beliefs at the relevant time.
    Those beliefs were based on the reasoning that the police
    ought not to have been breath testing people on the sabbath
    and that he ought not to be guilty of complicity in such an
    improper undertaking.
    - There is no suggestion that, at such time, the appellant
    exhibited any evidence of having consumed or been affected
    by alcohol.
    - It is beyond question that he was duly warned that a
    persistence in his refusal constituted a serious…

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 Spiros Chaousis v SA Police No. SCGRG 94/2091 Judgment No. 4...

Details

AGLC: Spiros Chaousis v SA Police No. SCGRG 94/2091 Judgment No. 4933 Number of Pages 4 Vehicles and Traffic Offences Alcohol and Drug Related Offences (1995) 76 a Crim R 257 (1995) 64 Sasr 148 [1995] SASC 4933
Case: [1995] SASC 4933
Decision Date: 31 January 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, Olsson J heard an appeal by Spiros Chaousis against his conviction for refusing to submit to a breath test as required by section 47e of the Road Traffic Act. The conviction arose from an incident on 11 June 1994, where Chaousis was operating a random breath testing station on Goodwood Road at Kings Park and refused to comply with police requests to blow into an alcotest apparatus, citing his religious beliefs as the reason for his refusal. The court needed to decide whether Chaousis's religious belief constituted "good cause" for his refusal under section 47e(4)(b) of the Act. The legal issues centered around whether a refusal based on religious beliefs could satisfy the "good cause" requirement and whether Chaousis's belief was reasonable in the circumstances.

The court reasoned that while religious beliefs could potentially constitute good cause, the belief must be objectively reasonable. The magistrate had accepted the genuineness of Chaousis's religious belief but found it not reasonable, as Chaousis's assessment of his church's teachings was not supported by any evidence from church authorities. The court found that Chaousis's belief was based solely on his personal interpretation, which was not reasonably founded. The reasoning followed the precedents set in Bottomley v Symons and Czerwinski v Hayes, where genuine beliefs based on proper grounds could amount to good cause, but they must be objectively reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed as the court found no error in the magistrate's assessment. The decision was consistent with previous cases that required a reasonable basis for genuine beliefs to qualify as good cause under the Act.

Orders