Failing to Comply with Breath Test Direction | Case Study

Background

At Talon Legal, we assisted a client facing a serious traffic offence charge under section 47E(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA). The charge alleged that the client failed or refused to comply with a lawful direction to provide a breath sample. If convicted, the client faced severe penalties, including a mandatory 12-month license disqualification and probationary licence conditions.

The case presented unique challenges, including the client’s medical condition, which affected their ability to comply with the breath test. With careful preparation, strategic arguments, and thorough evidence gathering, we successfully advocated for our client, achieving a favourable outcome.

The Allegations

The client was charged with:

1. Failure to comply with a reasonable and lawful direction to provide a breath sample for an Alcotest or breath analysis.
2. Facing a mandatory 12-month license disqualification and a substantial fine if convicted of the category 3 offence.

The Challenges

The elements of the offence required proving that:

1. The direction was lawful and reasonable.
2. The client failed to comply without good cause.
3. The client was given an opportunity to comply.

Given the strict liability nature of the offence, our client’s defence relied on exceptions under the Act, particularly the “good cause” defence, which applies when a refusal or failure stems from a medical condition.

Our Defence Strategy

1. Establishing the Medical Condition
   • The client experienced anxiety-induced panic attacks, affecting their ability to provide an adequate breath sample.
   • A psychologist’s report was provided, confirming symptoms including shortness of breath and asthma-like attacks.
2. Documenting Attempts
   • Despite making four attempts to provide a breath sample, the results were insufficient to record a reading.
   • A blood sample was provided, complying with section 47E(4a), which requires police to facilitate blood testing in cases of medical inability.
3. Good Cause Defence
   • The defence focused on demonstrating that the client’s failure was due to their genuine and objectively reasonable belief that their condition prevented compliance.
   • We reinforced this argument with expert medical evidence and documented the unavailability of a spirometry report during the COVID-19 pandemic.
4. Alternative Argument for ‘Trifling’ Offence
   • We argued that the offence could be deemed trifling, enabling the Court to impose a reduced disqualification period of one month instead of the mandatory 12 months.

Outcome

• The client’s medical condition provided sufficient grounds for the good cause defence under section 47E(4).
• The evidence demonstrated that the client acted reasonably in the circumstances, having attempted to comply with the breath testing process.

Take Action Now

If you have been charged with a traffic offence, do not face it alone. Contact Talon Legal today for expert legal advice and representation.