Western Australian Repealed Regulations

[Index] [Table] [Search] [Search this Regulation] [Notes] [Noteup] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]

This legislation has been repealed.

RAIL SAFETY REGULATIONS 1999 - REG 25

25 .         Evidence

        (1)         In any proceedings, a certificate purporting to be signed by the Director General certifying that a person named in the certificate is an authorised officer or a person appointed under regulation 17 constitutes proof, in the absence of proof to the contrary, of the matters so certified.

        (2)         Subject to subregulation (4), in any proceedings, a certificate purporting to be signed by an authorised person certifying that —

            (a)         the apparatus used by the authorised person was breath analysing equipment within the meaning of the regulation 14(3);

            (b)         the breath analysing equipment was in proper order and was properly operated;

            (c)         equipment referred to in the certificate is or was of a kind approved under regulation 15(b) for the purpose of performing a preliminary test;

            (d)         a railway employee named in the certificate submitted to a preliminary test on a specified day and at a specified time and that the preliminary test indicated that the concentration of alcohol prescribed under regulation 16 may then have been present in the employee’s blood,

                constitutes proof, in the absence of proof to the contrary, of the matters so certified.

        (3)         Subject to subregulation (4), a certificate purporting to be signed by an authorised person certifying that —

            (a)         a sample of the breath of a railway employee named in the certificate was furnished for analysis in breath analysing equipment;

            (b)         a concentration of alcohol expressed in grams in 100 mL was indicated by that breath analysing equipment as being present in the blood of that person on the day and at the time stated in the certificate; and

            (c)         a written notice required by regulation 20(1) was delivered to the railway employee in accordance with that regulation,

                constitutes proof, in the absence of proof to the contrary, of the matters so certified.

        (4)         A certificate referred to in subregulation (2), (3), or (5) may be used as evidence only if —

            (a)         a copy of the certificate has, not less than 7 days before the commencement of the trial, been served on the person to whom the certificate relates;

            (b)         the person on whom a copy of the certificate has been served has not, not less than 2 days before the commencement of the trial, served written notice on the complainant or informant requiring the attendance at the trial of the person by whom the certificate was signed; or

            (c)         the court does not require the person by whom the certificate was signed to attend at the trial.

        (5)         Subject to subregulation (4), an apparently genuine document purporting to be a certificate, or copy of a certificate, of a medical practitioner, analyst, or drugs analyst under these regulations is admissible in any proceedings and constitutes proof, in the absence of proof to the contrary, of the matters stated in the certificate.

        (6)         Certificates of a medical practitioner, analyst, or drugs analyst which refer to the same identification number for a sample of blood or urine constitute proof, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the certificates relate to the same sample of blood or urine.

        (7)         The concentration of alcohol indicated in a notice given under regulation 20 as being present in a railway employee’s blood constitutes proof that that was the concentration of alcohol in that employee’s blood at the time of the breath analysis and in the 5 hours before the analysis unless it is proved from an analysis of a blood sample under these regulations that the concentration indicated in the notice could not have been correct at the relevant time.

        (8)         The concentration of alcohol or another drug certified in a certificate of an analyst or drug analyst under regulation 22(5) as being present in a railway employee’s blood or urine constitutes proof, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that that was the concentration of alcohol or the other drug in that employee’s blood at the time that the blood or urine sample was taken and in the 5 hours before the sample was taken.



AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback