Campbell v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Transport
[2018] WADC 24
•15 FEBRUARY 2018
CAMPBELL -v- CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT [2018] WADC 24
| DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2018] WADC 24 | |
| Case No: | CIVO:2/2017 | 22 JANUARY 2018 | |
| Coram: | GLANCY DCJ | 15/02/18 | |
| PERTH | |||
| 9 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ANDREW WILLIAM CAMPBELL CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT |
Catchwords: | Motor vehicles Life disqualification Application for removal of disqualification Road Traffic Act 1978 s 78 Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008 s 24 Application refused Turns on its own facts |
Legislation: | Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008 (WA) Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) |
Case References: | Nil |
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Applicant
AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
Respondent
Catchwords:
Motor vehicles - Life disqualification - Application for removal of disqualification - Road Traffic Act 1978 s 78 - Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008 s 24 - Application refused - Turns on its own facts
Legislation:
Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008 (WA)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA)
Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA)
Result:
Application dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : In person
Respondent : Ms S Smith
Solicitors:
Applicant : Not applicable
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
- GLANCY DCJ:
Background
1 The applicant, Mr Andrew William Campbell, is a 50-year-old man who was disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver's licence for life in the Esperance Court of Petty Sessions on 13 October 2004. Mr Campbell received a further disqualification from holding or obtaining a motor driver's licence for life in the Esperance Magistrates Court on 12 June 2007.
2 The applicant has applied for an order that the life disqualification imposed in 2004 be removed. The application was expressed as being made under s 78 of the Road Traffic Act1974. At the hearing of the application the respondent rightly pointed out that applications for the removal of life disqualifications from holding or obtaining a motor driver's licence are dealt with under the Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act2008. The respondent further indicated that there was no objection to the current application being amended so as to bring it within the terms of that Act and to be an application for the removal of both life disqualifications. I have dealt with this matter as an application brought under s 24 of the Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act for the removal of both life disqualifications.
3 The application was opposed by the respondent.
Factors to consider in dealing with the application
4 An application for the removal of a life disqualification from holding or obtaining a motor driver's licence is governed by s 24 of the Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act.
5 Section 24(2) authorises this particular application to be made to the District Court. Section 24(3) and s 24(4) allow an application to be made after a period of 10 years from the life disqualification being imposed.
6 In considering whether to exercise the discretion to remove the life disqualification I am compelled, by s 24(5) of the Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act,to have regard to the following factors:
(a) the safety of the public generally;
(b) the character of the applicant;
(c) the circumstances of the case;
(d) the nature of the offence or offences giving rise to the disqualifications; and
(e) the conduct of the applicant subsequent to the disqualification.
Materials filed in support of the application
7 The applicant filed an affidavit in support of his application which was sworn on 17 November 2017. He subsequently filed further documents in support. In all, the application was supported by:
1. A statutory declaration made by Dr Walter Byrne who declared that Mr Campbell has 'remained off alcohol' for the last 12 months; that there is no evidence of alcohol dependence and that his last three liver function tests are normal.
2. Correspondence from Aubrey Davies, of Hope Community Services (HCS), to the effect that the applicant had participated in 11 counselling sessions and two relapse prevention group sessions with HCS between the period of 6 December 2016 and 14 September 2017. HCS is an organisation providing alcohol and drug services in the Esperance region.
3. An affidavit of Paul David Mack to the effect that he has known the applicant for approximately 10 months; Mr Campbell has worked for him casually during that period and lives on the property from which he runs his business; that he finds the applicant to be sound and responsible and a person who he believes could be trusted with the responsibility of driving a motor vehicle.
4. A letter from Vince and Robyn Mack dated 10 November 2017 to the effect that the applicant had rented a house from them for the preceding 12 months and has been a reliable tenant over that time; has assisted around their farm; is a hard worker and has been clean from alcohol abuse and drug addiction for the year he has resided with them.
5. An undated letter from Lisa Andre, PIR Support Facilitator, from Bay of Isles Community Outreach Inc. in which she states that she has been working with the applicant in a support capacity for his mental health and wellbeing; that he has been regularly attending sessions and has been connecting well with HCS. She also stated that she believes that the applicant will resume his attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, which are held at night, if he receives his licence back.
The applicant's relevant criminal history
8 The applicant was first disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver's licence for life on 13 October 2004 following his conviction for driving under the influence. On the same day he was convicted of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and breach of bail. It is not clear whether those convictions relate to offending which took place on the same day on which the driving under the influence occurred. It is likely that they do.
9 On 12 June 2007, the applicant was convicted of street drinking, obstructing public officers, failing to have a dog tethered and possessing an article carried with intent to cause fear. These offences were committed on 8 January 2007.
10 The applicant was again disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for life on 12 June 2007 upon his conviction for driving under the influence. On the same day he was also convicted of creating undue and excessive noise (an offence under s 255 of the Road Traffic Code 2000) and for driving without a motor driver's licence which was at the time under suspension. Those offences were committed on 26 May 2007.
11 Since 2007 the applicant's record reveals a significant history of offending. In September 2009, the applicant was convicted of two offences of disorderly behaviour in public which occurred on 15 June 2009 and 24 June 2009 respectively, and one offence of breach of bail.
12 On 22 March 2011, the appellant was convicted of obstructing public officers, failing to comply with a request to give police personal details and disorderly behaviour in public. These offences occurred on 18 March 2011.
13 On 11 October 2011, the applicant was convicted of three counts of breaching a conditional release order without a reasonable excuse.
14 On 17 January 2012 a conviction of obstructing a public officer was recorded.
15 On 21 March 2012, the applicant was convicted of disorderly behaviour in public.
16 On 29 November 2012, the applicant was convicted of obstructing public officers, failing to comply with a request to give police personal details, disorderly behaviour in public and disorderly behaviour in a police station. These offences occurred on 24 November 2012.
17 On 21 February 2013, the applicant was convicted of disorderly behaviour in public.
18 On 10 August 2016 the applicant was convicted of remaining on licensed premises and giving false personal details to police.
19 Finally, the record reveals that on 14 March 2017 the applicant was convicted of trespass and assaulting a public officer.
The evidence of the applicant
20 In his affidavit the applicant attests that he was a heavy drinker at the time the traffic offences were committed; binge drinking whenever he had the money to do so. He acknowledged in cross-examination that he was an alcoholic. He attests that since the last of his traffic offences he has taken steps, through attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), counselling and his new found religious faith, to break the cycle of alcohol abuse and offending and to turn his life around. He says that he has not been behind the wheel of a car since his last driving convictions.
21 The applicant gave evidence that he would like to obtain a driver's licence in order to increase his job prospects and to be able to drive his children around to activities, which his former behaviour has deprived them of now for many years. He states that it would also give him independence and would mean he was better able to help his family and others. His evidence was that he attends his church regularly.
22 The applicant's affidavit states that without a driver's licence he has difficulty attending AA meetings. The meetings are held in the evenings, some 10 km out of town and presently he rides his bike when he needs transport.
23 In his affidavit the applicant attests that, prior to the offences of which he was convicted in 2017, he had not been drinking for three years. He stated that he relapsed on that one occasion because he had broken up with his partner.
24 The applicant was cross-examined in relation to this statement as it seemed inconsistent with the convictions for remaining on licensed premises in 2016 and the facts relevant to the 2017 offending.
25 At one point in his evidence the applicant stated that he had ceased to drink alcohol in 2007 and that he had been sober for approximately 11 years with the exception of two relapses, lasting one day each in 2016 and 2017, each of which resulted in convictions for offences previously mentioned.
26 The applicant was asked in cross-examination whether he was drinking at the time of the offences of which he was convicted after 2007. His evidence was that those offences took place eight or nine years ago and that he has moved on from them and no longer has any independent memory of any of the offences as he tries not to go back to his past or carry his criminal record with him in his mind. I do not accept the applicant's evidence that he has been sober since 2007 with the exception of the two admitted relapses. The nature of the offending between 2007 and 2016 suggest he was drinking at the time those offences were committed.
27 When pressed further as to when it was that he ceased drinking, the applicant continued to assert that he had not consumed alcohol for three years prior to the 25 February 2017 offences, other than on the occasions of the two admitted relapses. If this evidence is accepted it would mean that the applicant had been largely sober since February 2014. I accept that this may be the case.
28 In cross-examination the applicant agreed that the offending in 2017 which involved refusing to leave his former partner's house when asked to do so and punching the police officer in the face when the police were called to the home took place in circumstances in which he had consumed alcohol. The applicant acknowledged under cross-examination that the assaulting of the police officer was a serious offence but seemed not to accept that it had been committed deliberately, instead suggesting that he had just swiped his arm in the officer's direction. He also accepted that at the time the offence was committed he was attending counselling.
29 The applicant gave evidence that none of the offending following the second life disqualification involved driving. This fact is certainly to his credit.
The attitude of the respondent
30 The respondent opposed the application. The respondent's submission was that there was no evidence that the applicant has ceased to consume alcohol in 2007 and that the evidence, at best, was that he had not consumed alcohol since early 2017. The respondent further submitted that whether or not the applicant had been largely sober since 2007, his admitted two recent relapses, involving the consumption of alcohol to excess, had resulted in serious offending. One of those relapses occurred during the period in which the applicant was attending counselling for his alcohol addiction.
31 The respondent submitted that the conduct since the first life disqualification was imposed, being marked by regular offending and, indeed, the making of a subsequent life disqualification, means that I cannot be satisfied as to the safety of the public in the event that the life disqualification were to be removed and the applicant were to obtain a motor driver's licence.
Merits of the application
32 None of the independent material filed in support of the application establishes that the applicant has abstained for alcohol for more than the last 12 months.
33 The applicant's attempts to turn his life around are to be commended and encouraged and the material supplied as to his present character is positive. Against that, however, I have regard to his long history of disobedience to his obligations under the Road Traffic Act1974 and the law generally, as is evidenced by his criminal history. Almost all of the offending seems to have involved the consumption of alcohol to excess.
34 Further, his conduct since the first life disqualification was imposed, in conjunction with the imposition of the second life disqualification do not engender confidence as to his conduct if the disqualifications were to be removed.
35 At best, the applicant has been largely sober since February 2014. However, since that time he has had two relapses, the most recent being having occurred less than 12 months prior to this application. Both of these relapses have resulted in the commission of offences, one of which, that of assaulting a police officer, was particularly serious.
36 While the applicant has not committed any driving offences for a significant period of time, I am not satisfied that he would not commit a driving offence if he had a licence and were to relapse in his sobriety. Nor has he been sober without relapse for a sufficiently long period of time for me to be assured that a further relapse is unlikely.
37 In my view the applicant needs to demonstrate his sobriety and good conduct over a further period of time. I am not satisfied that it is in the public interest to restore the applicant's licence at this time. The application is therefore dismissed.
0
0
3