Police defend drink case

Only the lower of two alcohol readings presented in court

PROSECUTORS acted in the “public interest” when they allowed a high-range drink driver to face the lower of two alcohol readings in court, a senior Tasmania Police commander says.

In a leaked letter relating to an internal investigation of the actions of the Northern Prosecutions branch, Professional Standards Commander Tim Dooley said two senior sergeants had “legitimately exercised prosecutorial discretion” and “did so based on appropriate public interest considerations.”

In a year long Professional Standards probe, allegations of perverting justice and release of material to the media were investigated.

Jeremy Alfred Curtis, 40, of Launceston blew 0.142 on a breathalyser in January last year. A blood analysis the same night recorded a reading of 0.169.

However in the Launceston Magistrates Court, police presented Mr Curtis’s breath test result and magistrate Sharon Cure was told the blood result hadn’t been “actioned”.

She sentenced Mr Curtis to six months disqualification from driving and allowed him to apply for a restricted licence.

Commander Dooley claimed there was no conflict between the two tests.

However, Hobart barrister Greg Barns said it was implausible for Police Professional Standards to suggest there was no conflict between relying on the reading of 0.142 and that of 0.169.

“Section 23 of the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 Act states that in the event there is a conflict between the blood alcohol reading and the breath analysis reading, the former shall prevail,” he said.

“On any reading of the Act, it is a very clear and unambiguous provision which one would have thought every Tasmania Police officer would know.

“In this case the difference between the readings was significant in terms of penalty and access to a restricted licence.

“The minimum term of disqualification for under 0.15 is 6 months where it is 12 months for 0.15 or more,” he said.

Mr Barns said the Tasmania Police investigation was another example of why police should not investigate police.

Deputy Commissioner Scott Tilyard said that when Mr Curtis went to court there were no conflicting readings.

“The original breath analysis reading was the only reading before the court,” he said.

“The section does not require a complaint to be amend- ed if another reading becomes known,” he said.

Mr Tilyard said the public interest considerations were found to be proper by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

He declined to say what the considerations were.

Commander Dooley said in his letter that the public interest considerations were appropriately recorded on the court file. A copy of the file seen by the Mercury refers only to a plea deal where the breath result would be accepted if a guilty plea was made.