A charge under s 49(1)(eb) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) alleging a 'refusal to remain' at a testing location need not expressly allege that a 'requirement to remain' was given; the use of the word 'refuse' necessarily implies the prior making of the requirement. The principle from Bell v Dawson applies equally to refusals to remain under s 55E as it does to refusals to accompany under s 55. Kypri did not overrule Bell; the two decisions address different issues — Kypri concerns the need to identify the specific statutory provision under which a requirement was made, while Bell concerns whether a requirement may be identified by implication.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.