DPP v Korybutiak - [2004] VSC 3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 7356 of 2003

IN THE MATTER of an Appeal on a Question of law pursuant to s.92 Magistrates’ Court Act 1989

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (On behalf of Mark Higgins)	Appellant
v
ADRIAN JOHN KORYBUTIAK	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	NATHAN J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	10 December 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 January 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Korybutiak
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 3

---

Road Safety Act 1986 – Sections 88, 89A – Regulation 603 – Traffic Infringement Notices – Notices of Objection – Requirements of Notice to comply with provision requiring address of objectee – Access to Court – Failure to comply with Regulation – Invalidity of Notice of Infringement as a whole – Impediment to administration of justice if notice accessing courts is defective.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr R.A. Elston	Kay Robertson Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr S.P. Hardy	The Law Offices of Barry Fried

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Korybutiak, drove or rather hurtled his car along Belato Road, Frankston on 1 March 2003 at a speed in excess of 150 kilometres per hour. It was a 90 kilometre per hour zone. He was intercepted by police who conducted a licence check. That check revealed Mr Korybutiak had received a previous Traffic Infringement Notice (TIN) on 10 October 2002 also for driving at an excessive speed. For the October 2002 offence, which he did not contest, Mr Korybutiak was penalised by having his licence suspended for six months and was fined $430. He paid the fine on 17 January 2003. It appears he did so after he received a warning letter, rather than on the basis of the TIN. The TIN contained notification that after 28 days from its issue, his licence would be suspended for six months, unless he contested the matter by lodging a Notice of Objection. He did not do so.

A police member asked Mr Korybutiak why he was driving when his licence was suspended. Mr Korybutiak replied he was not aware that he had lost it. He was charged amongst other matters, with driving when his authorisation to do so was suspended. The hearing of that information relating to the events in March 2003 proceeded before a magistrate at Frankston on 30 July 2003. The information was dismissed on the ground that the October 2002 TIN was invalid. The invalidity being that it did not comply with Regulation 603 made pursuant to the Road Safety Act 1986 (the Act) in that the Notice of Objection (N.o.O.) printed on the reverse side of the TIN did not contain the name and address of the person to whom the N.o.O. was to be sent. I consider the magistrate was correct. Mr Korybutiak was not disqualified from driving in March 2003 when it was alleged he was. The TIN relating to the October 2002 offences did not comply…

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.

Continue reading DPP v Korybutiak

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Korybutiak [2004] VSC 3
Case: [2004] VSC 3
Decision Date: 30 January 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the respondent, Korybutiak, concerning the validity of a traffic infringement notice issued under the Road Safety Act 1986. The issue arose from the failure to include the objectee's address on the Notice of Objection, which is a mandatory requirement under Regulation 603. The matter was heard in a relevant Australian court.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the omission of the objectee's address rendered the Notice of Objection invalid in its entirety and whether this defect impeded the administration of justice. The respondent argued that the notice was invalid due to non-compliance with the regulation, while the prosecution contended that the defect did not affect the validity of the notice and that the court should have the discretion to consider the notice despite the omission.

In determining the matter, the court considered the statutory framework and the regulatory provisions governing traffic infringement notices. It found that the omission of the objectee's address was a significant defect that rendered the Notice of Objection invalid. The court emphasised that the regulation explicitly requires the address of the objectee to be included, and this omission was not a trivial matter but an impediment to the administration of justice. Consequently, the court held that the Notice of Objection was invalid, and the proceedings based on it could not proceed.

The court ordered that the proceedings against Korybutiak be dismissed due to the invalidity of the Notice of Objection. The decision underscores the importance of strict compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements in the issuance of traffic infringement notices, highlighting that any failure to comply with such requirements can result in the notice being deemed invalid and the proceedings based on it being unable to proceed.

Orders