Woolston v Commissioner of Police

Woolston brought an appeal against a decision of the District Court, seeking leave to appeal the dismissal of her appeal from a conviction in the Magistrates Court of failing to provide a specimen of breath as required by police and failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis. The applicant argued that the appeal should be allowed because there had been a miscarriage of justice, she had been discriminated against, and the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. She also argued that the lengthier interlock period should not apply to her because her offending occurred before the introduction of the amending legislation. The legal issues in this case were whether it was open for the applicant to be subject to the lengthier interlock period, notwithstanding that the offending preceded the introduction of the amending legislation, and whether the primary judge’s conclusions were glaringly improbable or unreasonable.

The Court found that the applicant had not established that there was a reasonable argument there was an error to be corrected and had not established that leave was necessary to correct a substantial injustice, or that the proposed appeal raised an important point of law or principle, or a question of general or public importance. The Court found that the primary judge had correctly summarised the operation of the amended provisions and that it was open as a matter of law for the applicant to be liable to such a condition, notwithstanding that the offending preceded the introduction of the amending legislation. The Court found that there was nothing in the applicant’s submissions to support a conclusion that the primary judge’s conclusions were contrary to the evidence, or unreasonable in the sense that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was against such conclusions. The Court found that the primary judge’s findings were consistent with the contents of the medical certificate and the contemporaneous recordings, and that leave to adduce further evidence would not alter that conclusion.

The Court ordered that the application for leave to adduce further evidence filed 17 January 2023 and the application for leave to adduce further evidence filed 22 April 2023 be refused, and that leave to appeal be refused.