Webb, David William v Harris, Dennis Barry [1983] FCA 380

Webb, David William v Harris, Dennis Barry [1983] FCA 380

Non-compliance with procedural requirements regarding testing the instrument before use and providing a proper written statement after analysis are not fatal to the conviction under s.19 if the court is satisfied, pursuant to s.42(2), that the result would not have been less had there been compliance. In this case, the Supreme Court's findings satisfied s.42(2) and the conviction was upheld.

Parties
Appellant: David William Webb; Respondent: Dennis Barry Harris
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 1983
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Breath Analysis, Procedural Compliance, Motor Traffic (alcohol and Drugs) Ordinance, Interpretation of Statutory Provisions
Criminal Law Traffic Law Breath Analysis Procedural Compliance Motor Traffic (alcohol and Drugs) Ordinance Interpretation of Statutory Provisions

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David William Webb

Appellant

Dennis Barry Harris

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-compliance with procedures before and after breath analysis constitutes an element of the offence under s.19 of the Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether compliance with every provision is to be proved as an element of the offence under s.19
  3. 3 Whether non-compliance with the procedures can be saved by s.42 of the Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

Non-compliance with procedural requirements regarding testing the instrument before use and providing a proper written statement after analysis are not fatal to the conviction under s.19 if the court is satisfied, pursuant to s.42(2), that the result would not have been less had there been compliance. In this case, the Supreme Court's findings satisfied s.42(2) and the conviction was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • David William Webb to pay Dennis Barry Harris his costs of the appeal.