27 Jun 2022
The prosecution proved the appellant understood he was at risk of conviction when he declined a blood test; the Block J warning, as given, ordinarily suffices under s77 and the police reasonably complied with s77 such that s64(2) applies; therefore the evidential breath test was admissible and the conviction is upheld.
30 Jul 2020
The s 68(1)(b) threshold was met (good cause to suspect recent offending), the delay was reasonable and established authority rejects displacement of the s 77(1) presumption by subsequent drinking or delay absent evidence it skewed results, and the officer did not breach any implied licence by passing the screening device into the open doorway because the occupant had not revoked or terminated the licence; therefore the screening and evidential breath tests were admissible and the conviction and sentence stand.
19 Dec 2018
Leave was refused because the appeal did not raise a matter of general or public importance and there was no real risk of miscarriage: the Act makes the EBT result determinative unless rebutted or a blood test elected, the applicant failed to provide evidence that mouth gel caused the excess or to elect a blood test, and there was no legal basis to construe "breath" as requiring alveolar breath for the statutory EBT process.
4 May 2016
Leave to bring a second appeal was granted because there is an arguable issue that the District Court's reliance on the evidence of Dr Parbhu and on the evidential breath test may have caused a miscarriage of justice.
11 Apr 2016
The application for leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the proposed grounds did not raise matters of general or public importance nor a real risk of miscarriage of justice; Moore J correctly held the facilitation duty did not require ongoing re-offers of counsel and that the constable reasonably exercised the discretion under s70(1) in abandoning further breath testing and requiring a blood specimen.