Victoria Police v Brasse

Victoria Police brought charges against Brasse under the Road Safety Act 1986, alleging that he failed an oral fluid test. Brasse contested the charges, raising issues about the admissibility of the evidence presented by the police. The court had to decide on two primary legal issues: first, whether a s 84 Certificate provided by the police complied with the legislative requirements; and second, whether an infringement notice tendered as evidence of a prior conviction met the statutory criteria for admissibility. The court examined the s 84 Certificate and found it to be deficient, concluding that it did not meet the necessary legislative standards. Consequently, the court ruled that the certificate could not be relied upon as evidence. Regarding the infringement notice, the court also determined that it did not include the required information as prescribed by the legislation, rendering it inadmissible. The court's decision hinged on strict compliance with statutory requirements for both the s 84 Certificate and the infringement notice. The outcome was that both pieces of evidence were ruled inadmissible, which significantly impacted the case against Brasse.