Bradley, Peter John v. Armstrong, Paul Anthony [1981] FCA 199

Bradley, Peter John v. Armstrong, Paul Anthony [1981] FCA 199

The Minister's notice validly approved the Alcolmeter as an approved screening device under s.5(2) because the Schedule described devices by a combination of characteristics, including the words written on the instrument and the incorporated meter with graduated scale and associated markings, which was sufficient to describe a type of device. Gosden v Billerwell concerned materially different wording and did not bind the Court to invalidate this notice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 1981
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory Concerning a Court of Petty Sessions Information for Resisting a Member of the Australian Federal Police in the Execution of His Duty / Full Court Appeal in the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Supreme Court order dismissing the appeal set aside; matter remitted to the Court of Petty Sessions, Canberra to be dealt with according to law; costs of the appeal to this Court reserved.
Legal Topics
['approval of Screening Devices' 'motor Traffic (alcohol and Drugs) Ordinance 1977 S.5(2)' 'alcolmeter' 'breath Alcohol Screening Test' 'resisting Police in Execution of Duty' 'effect of Prior Full Court Authority']
['criminal Law' 'traffic Law' 'administrative Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['approval of Screening Devices' 'motor Traffic (alcohol and Drugs) Ordinance 1977 S.5(2)' 'alcolmeter' 'breath Alcohol Screening Test' 'resisting Police in Execution of Duty' 'effect of Prior Full Court Authority']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory Concerning a Court of Petty Sessions Information for Resisting a Member of the Australian Federal Police in the Execution of His Duty / Full Court Appeal in the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Minister for the Capital Territory validly approved the Alcolmeter as an approved screening device under s.5(2) of the Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) Ordinance 1977.' "Whether Gosden v Billerwell required the Court to hold that the Minister's notice was invalid." 'Whether the description in the notice amounted to a description of a type of device.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister's notice validly approved the Alcolmeter as an approved screening device under s.5(2) because the Schedule described devices by a combination of characteristics, including the words written on the instrument and the incorporated meter with graduated scale and associated markings, which was sufficient to describe a type of device. Gosden v Billerwell concerned materially different wording and did not bind the Court to invalidate this notice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Supreme Court order dismissing the appeal set aside; matter remitted to the Court of Petty Sessions, Canberra to be dealt with according to law; costs of the appeal to this Court reserved.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' "The order in the Supreme Court dismissing the appeal be set aside and in accordance with s.219F(5) and (6) of the Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance 1930 the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to the Supreme Court." 'The matter be remitted to the Court of Petty Sessions,...