A woman has had a drug driving conviction quashed because her claim that she innocently ingested ice was not properly considered by a magistrate.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The driver was hospitalised following a crash on Bennelong Crescent in Maquarie in March last year.
Hospital staff were required to take a blood test, and it tested positive for the presence of methylamphetamine.
The woman was charged with drug driving, but denied that she had intentionally used ice.
She did not dispute the accuracy of the test, but said that the drug must have accidentally or inadvertently gotten into her system. The defendant said she hadn't used ice for eight years.
People were smoking something that appeared to be ice at a house party she was at two nights before the crash, she said.
The woman otherwise argued that the substance got in her system some other way that she was not aware of.
Either of those claims potentially provided a defence to the drug driving charge.
But Magistrate Maria Doogan dismissed the woman's defence, finding her guilty, fining her $400, and banning her from driving for six months.
Ms Doogan, in her reasons for the decision, said there had been "no explanation at all" as to how the ice came to be in the driver's body. She said there was no evidence that ice was being smoked at the party, but if it was, the defendant lingered too long.
"I am not satisfied that the substance got into her system by her inhaling it at some party so I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the offence."
The driver, represented by the Aboriginal Legal Service, appealed to the ACT Supreme Court, and Justice John Burns upheld the appeal on Thursday morning.
The appeal centred around how the evidentiary burden was dealt with by the magistrate.
Justice Burns said the magistrate had failed to deal with the woman's second argument, that the drug had got into her system some other way after the party.
He also found she had failed to make any findings about whether the woman had or had not met the evidentiary burden required to successfully use that defence.
Justice Burns said the magistrate was required to determine what facts she accepted after the woman's evidence, determine whether she was satisfied they met the evidentiary burden required to utilise her defence, and then find whether the prosecution had proved the defence should not apply.
"Unfortunately, the Magistrate did none of these things," he said.
The case has been remitted back to the ACT Magistrates Court for re-hearing by another magistrate.
