Test Submissions On Test Legislation

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32127, 24 October 1969, Page 15

Test Submissions On Test Legislation

A number of very Important points related to the new breath and blood test legislation had been raised by the defence, and as yet there was no authority for some of them, raid Mr W. F. Brown. S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. He reserved decision on a charge against Sidney John MacGuire. aged 26, a textile worker, of driving when the proportion of alcohol in his blood exceeded 100 milligrams of aloohol per 100 millilitres of blood. MacGuire pleaded not guilty to the charge, laid after he was involved in an accident in New Brighton Hoad in the errly hours of Sunday, August the Magistrate asked for written submissions from the defence counsel. Mr I. B. McNeil, and the police prosecutor, Sergeant J. D. Burrell. These would be considered on November 6, he said. Mr McNeil submitted that although a blood test taken two hours after his client had been involved in the accident had showed a reading of 145 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, this was not so at the time of the accident.

The accused bad consumed the alcohol immediately before the alleged offence, and it had not entered the bloodstream at that time. Breath and blood tests bad been taken later when the alcohol had reached its maximum level in the bloodstream. After the accident occurred, the police had not had "good” cause to ask for a breath test, as required by the regulations, said Mr McNeil. There had been no external evidence of bad driving by the accused which would give “good” cause. He submitted that the breath tests and, therefore, the blood test were inadmissable because they had been “induced” when the accused was led to believe it would be to his advantage to give them. The accused gave evidence that a third breath test had to be taken because the second was defective when the bag split, although the police denied this. «• If the Magistrate accepted the accused's word on this, said Mr McNeil, he submitted that the third test was unlawful because there was nothing in the act to permit a third test to be taken ‘if the second was defective.