1

GALT

Prosecution allegations

Your Honour.

On the 17th March 2012 at 6.25am, a milk vendor saw the lights of a car run off the road into a field and then stop just outside Stirling. He explored the situation and saw that a car had apparently gone through the fence and ended up in the middle of a field of vegetables.

There were two occupants in the car, a male and a female. The milk vendor contacted the Stirling Police, who attended and found both occupants partially undressed and apparently unconscious. The police tried to arouse both occupants of the car without success. The defendant was in the driver’s seat. Eventually, the police managed to arouse the defendant whose speech was very slurred and whose eyes were glazed.

Police asked the defendant whether he had been drinking and he said “no”. They asked him whether he had taken any drugs and he said “yes, some speed”. The Police asked how many he had taken and he said about three or four tablets.

The defendant was arrested. He was unable to walk from the car and needed assistance in putting his trousers back on.

A sample of his blood was subsequently taken and found to have traces of amphetamine in the blood.

The doctor who inspected the defendant, and the arresting officers formed the impression he was grossly affected by liquor or drugs. It was 12 hours after the arrest that the Sergeant in Charge of the Stirling Police Station thought it safe to allow the defendant to be bailed out, and that was on the condition that he did not drive his car back to Adelaide.

The defendant is 18 years of age. He has prior convictions in the Adelaide Youth Court for possession of cannabis when he was 15 years of age. He was fined $125 without conviction.

These are the facts, your Honour.

EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

/ COMPLAINT
Magistrates Court of South Australia

Summary Procedure Act, 1921
Sections 49 / Court Use
date filed
Complainant
Name:...THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBER OF THE POLICE FORCE
AddressADELAIDE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION
Defendant
Name: GALT, Douglas
Address68 Warwick Street, Walkerville
Offence details
The complaint of Police of Adelaide who on this 2nd day of April 2001 states
that Douglas Galt on the 17th day of March 2012 at near Stirling in the said State:
Drove a vehicle, namely a motor vehicle on a road, namely Stirling Road,
whilst he was so much under the influence of drugs as to be incapable of
exercising effective control of the said vehicle.
Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1961.
This is a Summary Offence
Other orders sought (forfeiture, compensation, additional penalty, destruction or the like – Rule 15.03)
......
DateComplainantWitness
(Registrar, Deputy Registrar or Justice of the Peace)
(Not required if Complainant is a Public Authority)

Road Traffic Act 1961

47BA—Driving with prescribed drug in oral fluid or blood

(1) A person must not—

(a) drive a motor vehicle; or

(b) attempt to put a motor vehicle in motion, while a prescribed drug is present in his or her oral fluid or blood.

Penalty:

(a) for a first offence—a fine of not less than $900 and not more than $1 300;

(b) for a second offence—a fine of not less than $1 100 and not more than $1 600;

(c) for a third or subsequent offence—a fine of not less than $1 500 and not more than $2 200.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), it is a defence to a charge of an offence against subsection (1) if the defendant proves that he or she did not knowingly consume the prescribed drug present in his or her oral fluid or blood.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the defendant consumed the prescribed drug believing that he or she was consuming a substance unlawfully but was mistaken as to, unaware of or indifferent to the identity of the prescribed drug.

(4) If a court convicts a person of an offence against subsection (1), the following provisions apply:

(a) the court must order that the person be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence—

(ai) in the case of a first offence—for such period, being not less than 3 months, as the court thinks fit;

(i) in the case of a second offence—for such period, being not less than 6 months, as the court thinks fit;

(ii) in the case of a third offence—for such period, being not less than 12 months, as the court thinks fit;

(iii) in the case of a subsequent offence—for such period, being not less than 2 years, as the court thinks fit;

(b) if the person is the holder of a driver's licence—the disqualification operates to cancel the licence as from the commencement of the period of disqualification;

(c) the court may, if it thinks fit to do so, order that conditions imposed by section 81A or 81AB of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 on any driver's licence issued to the person after the period of disqualification be effective for a period greater than the period prescribed by that section.

(5) In determining whether an offence is a first, second, third or subsequent offence for the purposes of this section (other than subsection (6)), any previous drink driving offence or drug driving offence for which the defendant has been convicted will be taken into account, but only if the previous offence was committed within the prescribed period immediately preceding the date on which the offence under consideration was committed.

(6) If a person aged 16 years or more is alleged to have committed an offence against this section that is a first offence, the person cannot be prosecuted for that offence unless he or she has been given an expiation notice under the Expiation of Offences Act 1996 in respect of the offence and allowed the opportunity to expiate the offence in accordance with that Act.

(7) In determining whether an offence is a first offence for the purposes of subsection (6), any previous drink driving offence or drug driving offence for which the person has been convicted or that the person has expiated will be taken into account, but only if the previous offence was committed or alleged to have been committed within the prescribed period immediately preceding the date on which the offence under consideration was allegedly committed.