The High Court says there's no doubting the breathalyser.
For Adelaide man Jason Dunstall, that means it's back to the court which initially dismissed a charge of drink-driving after he blew 0.155 in January 2012.
After Dunstall was breathalysed and charged, he exercised his right to have his blood analysed for alcohol.
But the doctor apparently extracted a sample which was too small and no alcohol reading was possible.
The magistrate ruled that the breath analysis reading should be disregarded because Dunstall, through no fault of his own, had lost his only opportunity to prove he wasn't drink driving. Case dismissed.
For South Australian police, this was a worrying development as it appeared to make it easier for motorists to dispute drink driving charges.
They initially appealed to the SA Supreme Court which ruled in Dunstall's favour.
Police then appealed to the High Court.
Because drink-drive laws are generally the same across the country, this had potential implications beyond SA and both the commonwealth and Western Australia intervened in the case.
High Court judges stood by the well-established presumption that a properly conducted breathalyser test, performed within two hours of driving, gives an accurate alcohol reading at time of driving.
They ruled Dunstall did not have a statutory right to have his blood sample tested and the magistrate erred in excluding the breathalyser reading on grounds of unfairness.
The case now goes back to the SA Magistrates Court.
Share
