Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (10 March) . . Page.. 474 ..

Mr Rugendyke: No, it is not.

MR HUMPHRIES: I defer to Mr Rugendyke's information about that, but my understanding is that that is the case, that it is provided - - -

Mr Hargreaves: Pass or fail.

MR HUMPHRIES: You got us a copy. Very good, Mr Hargreaves; you have done your homework. It shows the time at which the test has been conducted. That information is available to the motorist. The person has the information available to them and it is the only information available to them, except for the summons which will come through in due course. I am not sure whether the summons shows the time at which the particular test has been conducted.

Mr Speaker, there is a requirement elsewhere in the legislation, the Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) Act, that there be a test conducted within two hours of the person having driven the motor vehicle. Mr Rugendyke has argued in this place that the issuing of a certificate is of little consequence, that it does not make much difference, that it is not important to anybody. The fact is that the certificate is evidence available to the defendant - the person who has been charged with a particular offence - and that person has that as a piece of evidence on which they may rely and on which basis they can consider their position with respect to that particular offence. Removing that removes that person's capacity potentially to mount a possible line of defence in the court. That is one particular argument which I am a little bit surprised that those opposite, in particular, who have been concerned about civil liberties have overlooked.

The other argument is about the effectiveness of the provision from the point of view of those who actually have to bring the prosecutions through the court. I ask members to consider whether they have overlooked the implication of this for the court itself. Mr Rugendyke says that he does not think that the certificate is of much import in the particular process. My understanding is that the certificate at the moment, at the present time, is always handed up to the bench when a person is being dealt with by the court for a drink-driving offence. Although Mr Rugendyke may not see it as important in the part of the work that he used to do as a person who would apprehend alleged drink-drivers on the roads, it is actually, it has been put to me, quite important for the court to take evidence of a person having been tested within two hours of having driven their motor vehicle on the road. If that evidence is not available in the form of a section 10A certificate, what evidence does the court have that the person - - -

Mr Hargreaves: Gary!

MR HUMPHRIES: I will come to that. What evidence does the court have that the person has actually been tested within the two hours? Mr Hargreaves has interjected by way of holding up pieces of paper in this debate. He has got documents.

Mr Hargreaves: I'll tell you about them later, too.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .