A North-West man who claimed his soft drink must have been spiked at a party before he was caught drug driving has had his charge and conviction dismissed on appeal.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The man had already served his mandatory driving ban however, after he was initially found guilty by a magistrate more than two years ago.
The appeal, heard in the Supreme Court in Launceston late last year, heard the P-plate driver had agreed to pick up his brother from a party between 3am and 4am.
He saw that "drugs were openly available and in plentiful supply", but claimed he only had a can of soft drink which was given to him by his brother "open and full".
The man told the court he left the can unattended on a table for a short time, but "he and his brother denied any knowledge that the drink had been spiked". He also said he trusted his brother.
MORE CRIME AND COURT NEWS:
After staying at the party for between 60 and 90 minutes, the man drove home on Gawler Road where he was intercepted by police and tested positive for ice and amphetamine.
He expressed disbelief at the reading, and told the court his employment required regular tests which he had never failed.
The magistrate accepted that the man had "an honest belief" that he had not knowingly taken drugs, but described his knowledge of drugs at the party and acceptance of the soft drink as "careless". He also believed the man's evidence "smacked of reconstruction".
For these reasons, guilt had been established.
In his appeal judgement last week, Justice Michael Brett found the fact that the magistrate agreed that the man had not knowingly taken drugs should have been enough to prove his innocence of the charge.
"The applicant's evidence concerning the fact that he had not taken drugs, and from which an inference could be drawn that he had a positive belief that the drugs were not in his body, was sufficient to discharge the evidential onus," Justice Brett said.
"[The magistrate] made a positive finding that the applicant did in fact have the requisite honest belief."
The charge, conviction and penalties were dismissed.