I don’t normally identify my correspondent but in this case they identified themselves on Facebook and the question only makes sense if I identify them. 

Dixons Hazard Response is a single person, volunteer responder in Western Australia (see Citizen’s hazard response service (May 13, 2022) and https://www.facebook.com/Dixonshazardresponse).  On his page was discussion about running red lights to get out of the way of emergency vehicles, a mater I’d already commented on – see Making way for emergency vehicles (2024) (July 6, 2024). The executive summary of that post is that the law in every state other than WA does say that one could proceed past a red light to make way for emergency vehicles although it is not an action without legal risk.   In that context he says:

Someone commented my page the other day talking about Section 25 of the WA Criminal Code – Extraordinary emergencies

A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission done or made under such circumstances of sudden or extraordinary emergency that an ordinary person possessing ordinary powers of self-control could not reasonably be expected to act otherwise.

I think it’s important to note that this refers to criminal responsibility, not civil but what’s your take on it.

That is, would s 25 provide a defence in WA?

The answer is ‘maybe’.  First the presence of an emergency vehicle is neither sudden nor extraordinary.  Road users should be familiar with the presence of emergency vehicles, it’s a common occurrence and the Road Rules do set out what is required.  I would think a ‘person possessing ordinary powers of self-control’ could reasonably be expected to comply with the law as it stands.  This defence, and it’s cousin the common law of necessity, is necessarily limited to stop people being able to make their own decisions about what law they chose to comply with (see Necessity and the protection of property (July 21, 2024)).

So as a matter of principle I would say ‘no’ but equally, ‘never say never’.   The section could provide an ‘out’ for a decision maker. If I was the lawyer acting for someone who had entered an intersection and received a ticket or worse, been involved in a collision where someone was injured, I’d certainly give it a run. It would allow a magistrate, or a jury in a more serious case, to acquit the accused if they wanted to; if they thought – ‘gee if I were in that position, I would have done the same, that looks reasonable to me.’

Conclusion

If it were me I’d give it a go, but I would not be very optimistic but a sympathetic person reviewing the photos, or a sympathetic magistrate might be persuaded. And you’d certainly give it a go if there was a serious accident and the mater was before a jury and you wanted to offer the jury a way out.

Proudly supported by (in alphabetical order) the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), the Australian Paramedics Association (Qld), Natural Hazards Research Australia, NSW Rural Fire Service Association and the NSW SES Volunteers Association. I am responsible for the content in this post including any errors or omissions. Any opinions expressed are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or understanding of these supporters.

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.