| Telephone: (08) 8204 0443 | Judges’ Chambers |
| DX Box 458 | Supreme Court |
| GPO Box 1068 Adelaide 5001 | 1 Gouger Street |
| Email: supreme.registry@courts.sa.gov.au | Adelaide SA 5000 |
2 December 2020
TO:
Internal Distribution
External Agencies via e-mail
E R R A T U M
PASCOE v THE QUEEN
Jurisdiction: Court of Criminal Appeal
Author: Court of Criminal Appeal
Judgment No: [2020] SASCFC 113
Action No: SCCRM-20-180
Delivery Date: 1 December 2020
Minor typographical amendments were made throughout the judgment. The judgment was republished.
Chambers of the Honourable Justice Stanley
Details
- AGLC
- Pascoe v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 113
- Case
- [2020] SASCFC 113
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Pascoe v The Queen*, the applicant, Pascoe, appealed to the Supreme Court of Queensland against his conviction for the offence of dangerous driving causing death. The appeal concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during the investigation of the fatal accident.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the evidence of the applicant's blood alcohol content (BAC), derived from a blood sample taken without his consent, was lawfully obtained and therefore admissible at trial. This required the Court to consider the application of section 794 of the *Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000* (Qld) and the common law powers of police to take such samples in circumstances where a person is incapable of giving consent.
Stanley J considered the provisions of the *Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000* (Qld) and relevant case law concerning the taking of blood samples. His Honour found that the police had acted within their powers under section 794 of the Act, which permits the taking of a sample of a person's breath, blood, or urine if the person is incapable of giving consent and the officer reasonably suspects the person has committed a relevant offence. The Court held that the evidence of the applicant's BAC was therefore lawfully obtained and admissible.
The appeal against conviction was dismissed.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the evidence of the applicant's blood alcohol content (BAC), derived from a blood sample taken without his consent, was lawfully obtained and therefore admissible at trial. This required the Court to consider the application of section 794 of the *Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000* (Qld) and the common law powers of police to take such samples in circumstances where a person is incapable of giving consent.
Stanley J considered the provisions of the *Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000* (Qld) and relevant case law concerning the taking of blood samples. His Honour found that the police had acted within their powers under section 794 of the Act, which permits the taking of a sample of a person's breath, blood, or urine if the person is incapable of giving consent and the officer reasonably suspects the person has committed a relevant offence. The Court held that the evidence of the applicant's BAC was therefore lawfully obtained and admissible.
The appeal against conviction was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.