Cooper v Howard - [2012] TASSC 24

[2012] TASSC 24

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Cooper v Howard [2012] TASSC 24

PARTIES:  COOPER, Damian
  v
  HOWARD, Michael Anthony

FILE NO/S: 1085/2011
JUDGMENT

APPEALED FROM: Cooper v Howard [2011] TASMC 30

DELIVERED ON:  23 May 2012
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  15 March 2012
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow J

CATCHWORDS:

Traffic Law – Licensing of drivers – Tasmania – Disqualification, cancellation or suspension of licences – Generally – Suspension – Whether suspension invalid – Direction of Director of Monetary Penalties Enforcement Service – Regulation requiring notification as to action that must be taken to avoid suspension.

Vehicle and Traffic (Driver Licensing and Vehicle Registration) Regulations 2010 (Tas), reg33.
Aust Dig Traffic Law [1059]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  J Shapiro
             Respondent:  P Morgan
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania

Judgment Number: [2012] TASSC 24
Number of paragraphs: 20

Serial No 24/2012
File No 1085/2011

DAMIAN COOPER v MICHAEL ANTHONY HOWARD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW J

24 May 2012

This a motion for the review of an order made by a magistrate, Mr C P Webster, dismissing a charge against the respondent, Michael Howard, of driving whilst his driver licence was under suspension, contrary to the Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999, s9(1).

A police officer saw Mr Howard driving on Gardenia Road at Risdon Vale on 31 December 2010. Mr Howard had some unpaid fines. They had been outstanding for some time. It appears from the material that was before the learned magistrate that, on 12 August 2010, the Director of the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Service ("the MPES") issued an enforcement order in respect of Mr Howard pursuant to the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005 ("the MPE Act"), Pt5, Div1. As a result, the Director had the power, under s54(1)(a) of that Act, to direct that Mr Howard's driver licence be suspended. It appears that the Director gave such a direction. On 18 November 2010 the Registrar of Motor Vehicles wrote to Mr Howard advising that, because he had not paid an outstanding penalty, his driver licence would be suspended on 1 December 2010.

At the hearing before the learned magistrate, Mr Howard contended that his licence had not been validly or effectively suspended. The learned magistrate held that the licence had not been validly suspended, and therefore dismissed the charge.

The letter from the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to Mr Howard did not contain a statement in accordance with the Vehicle and Traffic (Driver Licensing and Vehicle Registration) Regulations 2010 ("the 2010 regulations"), reg33(2)(a). Regulation 33(1) and (2) read as follows:

"(1) If the Registrar decides to vary, suspend or cancel a person's driver licence under this Division, the Registrar must give the person written notice of —
(a)the variation, suspension or cancellation of the licence; and
(b)the reasons for the variation, suspension or cancellation; and
(c)the date on which the variation, suspension or cancellation takes effect.

(2) If the proposed variation, suspension or cancellation is based…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cooper v Howard and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] TASSC 24
Decision Date: 23 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Cooper v Howard, the court was tasked with determining the validity of a suspension of the appellant's driver's licence. The respondent, acting as the Director of Monetary Penalties Enforcement Service, had suspended the licence following an alleged traffic offence in Tasmania. The appellant contested the suspension, arguing that it was invalid due to the lack of required notification as to the actions necessary to avoid suspension. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, which was required to decide whether the suspension was valid under the relevant legislation.

The central legal issue was whether the suspension of the appellant's driver's licence was valid, given that the respondent had not provided the statutory notification as to the actions that needed to be taken to avoid the suspension. The court was required to consider the statutory requirements and whether the failure to provide the required notification rendered the suspension invalid. The appellant argued that the omission of this notification was a fundamental procedural error, while the respondent contended that the suspension was valid and in accordance with the legislation.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania found that the failure to provide the statutory notification did indeed render the suspension invalid. The court held that the requirement to provide such notification was a mandatory procedural step that could not be overlooked. As the respondent had not complied with this requirement, the court concluded that the suspension was not valid. Consequently, the suspension of the appellant's driver's licence was quashed. The court emphasised the importance of strict adherence to statutory procedures in matters of driver's licence suspension to ensure fairness and legal certainty.

As a result of the court's decision, the suspension of the appellant's driver's licence was declared invalid. The court quashed the suspension, and the appellant's licence was effectively reinstated. The respondent was directed to take appropriate steps to notify the appellant of the outcome and to make any necessary corrections to the records. The court's decision underscored the necessity of procedural compliance in the enforcement of traffic laws, particularly in matters concerning the suspension of driver's licences.

Orders