The appeal is upheld on all grounds. The finding of guilt is overturned. The charge is dismissed.
Catchwords:
APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from the Magistrates Court – appeal against finding of guilt – drive while prescribed drug in oral fluid – finding dependent on decision to dismiss application to exclude evidence – factual finding challenged – appeal allowed – finding of guilt overturned
EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – roadside drug screening – section 138 of Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – whether section 13A(3) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) was complied with – whether officer formed requisite state of mind – where credibility of officers questioned – whether discretion should be exercised – application to exclude evidence successful
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 138 Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) ss 13, 18 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) art 9 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) Pt 3.10, ss 208, 218
[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 Tran v Stapleton
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Tran v Stapleton [2021] ACTSC 1
Case
[2021] ACTSC 1
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Tran v Stapleton, the appellant, Thuy Thi Thu Tran, appealed against a finding of guilt for driving with a prescribed drug in her oral fluid, contrary to s 20(1) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT). The appeal was heard by Loukas-Karlsson J, who determined that the appeal was upheld on all grounds, and the finding of guilt was overturned. The key issues were whether the Magistrate erred in finding that the appellant’s manner of driving provided reasonable cause for suspicion, whether the officers had reasonable cause to suspect that the appellant had a drug in her body, and whether the evidence obtained should be excluded under s 138 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT). The Court found that the Magistrate's acceptance of the officers' evidence was erroneous, as there were material inconsistencies and the officers' credibility was questioned. Furthermore, the Court found that the officers did not have reasonable cause to suspect the appellant had a drug in her body. Finally, the Court held that the evidence obtained should be excluded under s 138 of the Evidence Act, as the impropriety was of substantial significance and the evidence was obtained in reckless disregard of the appellant's human rights. Consequently, the charge against the appellant was dismissed.