Citation: Police v Parker [2013] NSWLC 10
Court: Local Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 January 2013
Judge(s): Magistrate Bone
Background
The accused faced a charge of driving with a middle range prescribed concentration of alcohol in his blood. The incident occurred on 3 March 2012, when he attempted to drive through a creek near Araluen that had risen significantly after heavy rain. The vehicle stalled in the water, one passenger subsequently died, and the accused was rescued from a tree and taken to Braidwood Hospital, where he was treated for hypothermia.
At 11.20pm, a registered nurse at the hospital took a blood sample from the accused. An analyst later examined that sample. The prosecution sought to tender certificates from both the nurse and the analyst as evidence of the blood's alcohol concentration.
The defence objected to the admission of those certificates, arguing that the nurse had no lawful authority to take the sample because the accused was not an "accident patient" within the meaning of the relevant legislation.
Legal Issues
- Whether the incident in the flooded creek constituted an "accident" for the purposes of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999
- Whether the accused's admission to hospital for hypothermia was "in consequence of" that accident, so as to make him an "accident patient" under section 20 of the Act
- Whether, if the accused was an "accident patient", the blood sample certificates were admissible in evidence
Decision
Issue 1: Meaning of "accident"
The Act does not define "accident." Magistrate Bone considered multiple dictionary meanings and the guidance from Lord Lindley in Fenton v J Thorley & Co Ltd [1903] AC 443, which describes an accident as any unintended and unexpected occurrence that produces hurt or loss. The Magistrate also had regard to the objects of the Act, which focus on road safety and traffic management. On that basis, the Magistrate held that an "accident," for the purposes of the legislation, encompasses any unfortunate mishap involving a motor vehicle that results in the hospitalisation of a person as a result of that mishap. The stalling of the accused's vehicle in the flooded creek satisfied that description.
Issue 2: Causal connection between the accident and the hospitalisation
The defence contended that even if the creek incident was an accident, the accused's admission for hypothermia was not "in consequence of" it. The Magistrate referred to Bell v Wood (1989) 15 NSWLR 708, where Yeldham J observed that "in consequence of" ordinarily denotes a causal relationship. In the present case, the Magistrate found the causal chain was clear and direct: the accused suffered hypothermia solely because his vehicle had stalled in a flooded creek and left him exposed to harsh conditions. There was no intervening cause of the kind that had made the causal link insufficient in Bell v Wood.
Issue 3: Admissibility of the certificates
Having found that the accused was an "accident patient," the Magistrate concluded that the nurse was lawfully authorised under section 20 of the Act to take the blood sample. The statutory requirements for taking and certifying the sample were therefore satisfied, and the certificates of both the nurse and the analyst were admitted into evidence.
Orders Made
- The accused was an "accident patient" within the meaning of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act.
- The certificates as to the taking of the blood sample and its analysis were admitted into evidence.
Key Takeaways
- The word "accident" in the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 is not limited to conventional collision scenarios; the Local Court found it extends to any unfortunate mishap involving a motor vehicle that results in a person's hospitalisation.
- A vehicle stalling in a flooded creek and causing the driver to suffer hypothermia can constitute an "accident" within the statutory definition, even though no collision or mechanical failure in the traditional sense occurred.
- Under section 20 of the Act, a registered nurse may lawfully take a blood sample where no medical practitioner is present; that authority depends on the patient qualifying as an "accident patient," which requires both an accident involving a motor vehicle and a causal connection between that accident and the hospital admission.
- The phrase "in consequence of," as applied in this decision, requires a direct causal relationship between the accident and the condition for which treatment is sought, consistent with the approach indicated in Bell v Wood (1989) 15 NSWLR 708.
- Certificates produced by the nurse and analyst under the Act are admissible where the statutory preconditions for taking the sample are met; a successful challenge to those preconditions would render the certificates inadmissible.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999
Cases
- Bell v Wood (1989) 15 NSWLR 708
- Fenton v J Thorley & Co Ltd [1903] AC 443