Director of Public Prosecutions v Stanojlovic

In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Stanojlovic, the defendant was charged under the Road Safety (Drivers) Regulations 2009 for failing to display a P plate while operating a vehicle as a probationary driver. The Magistrates’ Court found the defendant guilty, and subsequently sentenced him. The defendant appealed to the County Court, where the conviction and sentence were set aside. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) then sought judicial review in the Supreme Court to determine the correctness of the County Court's decision.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the County Court judge had erred in law by setting aside the conviction and sentence and whether the honest and reasonable mistake defence, as discussed in Proudman v Dayman, was applicable in this context. The court needed to clarify the nature of the offence under the Road Safety (Drivers) Regulations 2009, specifically considering whether the offence was one of strict or absolute liability.

The Supreme Court found that the County Court judge had erred by setting aside the conviction and sentence without properly considering the legal principles governing the offence. The court held that the offence of failing to display a P plate was one of strict liability, meaning that the defendant's state of mind was irrelevant to the proof of the offence. The court further declared that the Proudman v Dayman defence did not apply to this type of offence. The matter was remitted to the County Court for reconsideration according to law. The court's decision emphasised the need for adherence to the strict liability nature of the offence, ensuring that the regulatory requirements were strictly enforced.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that the Proudman v Dayman defence was not available in cases involving the failure to display a P plate and a direction to the County Court to reconsider the matter in light of the court's findings on strict liability. The conviction and sentence were to be re-evaluated in accordance with the correct legal principles.