Thompson v Judge Byrne

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Ian Thompson against a decision of the County Court of Victoria, which had applied the interpretation of s 49(1)(f) of the *Road Safety Act 1986* (Vic) established in *Mills v Meeking*. Mr Thompson was charged with driving with a prescribed concentration of alcohol after providing breath samples indicating a blood alcohol concentration of 0.105 grams per 100 millilitres of blood, despite a later blood sample taken within three hours of driving showing a concentration of 0.043 grams per 100 millilitres. The prosecution proceeded under s 49(1)(f), which creates an offence if a person furnishes a breath sample within three hours of driving and the analysis indicates a concentration above the prescribed limit.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the decision in *Mills v Meeking*, which interpreted s 49(1)(f) as creating an offence based on the breath analysis result irrespective of the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving, should be reconsidered and overturned. Mr Thompson contended that the section should be read to apply only to drivers involved in an accident, arguing that the literal interpretation led to an unjust outcome given the discrepancy between the breath and blood test results. The Court also considered the broader legislative intent behind provisions creating offences based on breath analysis.

The High Court unanimously held that *Mills v Meeking* was correctly decided and affirmed its reasoning. The Court reasoned that the legislative purpose of s 49(1)(f) was to overcome the evidentiary difficulties associated with proving the blood alcohol concentration at the precise moment of driving, a problem inherent in earlier "driving under the influence" offences. The Court found that the literal construction of s 49(1)(f), which focuses on the result of a breath analysis conducted within three hours of driving, was a deliberate legislative choice to simplify proof and enhance enforcement. The Court also noted that the legislative history and subsequent amendments to the Act did not suggest any intention to alter this interpretation.

Consequently, the High Court revoked the grant of special leave to appeal. As the Court found no reason to reconsider its previous decision in *Mills v Meeking*, the appeal on the merits of Mr Thompson's case did not proceed. The Court emphasised that its duty was to give effect to Parliament's clearly stated purpose in the legislation.