Stephen Morey v John Arthur Birch

The Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory heard an appeal by Stephen Morey against a decision of Gray J, which had dismissed an appeal from a magistrate's conviction. The appellant had been convicted of failing to obey a police officer's direction for the safe and efficient regulation of traffic, resulting in a fine and costs. The original incident involved the appellant driving a taxi with passengers, failing to stop when directed by Sergeant Birch at a random breath testing site, and driving past the officer, partially on the verge, before turning into another street.

The appeal raised two grounds: first, that the magistrate erred in concluding the traffic infringement notice had been issued improperly, and second, that the magistrate erred in finding the offence proved beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding the first ground, the appellant argued that a second infringement notice, issued after the first was withdrawn, was invalid. The Court considered s 22(2) of the *Road Transport (General) Act 1999* (ACT), which permits the service of multiple infringement notices for an offence and does not prevent prosecution if a notice is not served, is not complied with, or is withdrawn. The Court found that the issuance of a second infringement notice after the withdrawal of the first was permissible and did not invalidate the subsequent prosecution.

Concerning the second ground, the appellant contended that the direction given by Sergeant Birch was not for the "safe and efficient regulation of traffic" as required by Australian Road Rule 304(1), as the officers were conducting random breath testing. The Court found that the direction to pull over was given to prevent the vehicle from impeding traffic flow and creating a risk, thus falling within the scope of the rule. The appellant also argued the direction was ambiguous, but the Court found the use of a torch and the subsequent verbal command "Stop, stop" made the direction sufficiently clear. Finally, the Court rejected the submission that belated compliance by returning to the area later nullified the offence, considering it a matter relevant only to penalty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no arguable grounds of error in the decision below. The judges agreed with the reasoning of the President, noting that the appeal was based on points unsuccessfully argued in the lower courts.