Fletcher v Chief Executive of Department of Transport and Main Roads

[2010] QCAT 346

CITATION: Fletcher v Chief Executive of Department of Transport and Main Roads [2010] QCAT 346

PARTIES:	Gareth David Charles FLETCHER
v
Chief Executive of Department of Transport and Main Roads

APPLICATION NUMBER:   GAR220-10

MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:     15 July 2010

HEARD AT:  Brisbane

DECISION OF: C Endicott, senior member

DELIVERED ON: 15 July 2010

DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Stay refused

CATCHWORDS :  STAY - review of cancellation of driver’s licence – where disqualified from driving after traffic offence interstate

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The hearing took place on the papers in the absence of the parties. 

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr Fletcher committed a traffic offence in Victoria on 24 January 2010, namely driving while having a blood alcohol content exceeding the prescribed concentration of alcohol between 0.07% - 0.099%.  His interstate driver’s licence was cancelled and he was disqualified from driving for six months from 22 February 2010.

2. On 29 March 2010 the respondent issued a show cause notice to Mr Fletcher as to why his Queensland’s driver’s licence should not be cancelled.  On 5 May 2010 the respondent made a decision to cancel Mr Fletcher’s Queensland driver’s licence from 11 May 2010.

3. Mr Fletcher requested reconsideration of that decision and on 3 June 2010 the decision was reconsidered and the original decision was confirmed.

4. On 2 July 2010 Mr Fletcher applied to the Tribunal for a review of the respondent’s decision and on the same day he sought a stay of the operation of the decision.  He has submitted that he will be greatly disadvantaged if a stay is not granted because of the time it will take for the review to be determined by the Tribunal. 

5. He submits that the cancellation of his driver’s licence was an excessive penalty in the circumstances of his case and that it is not in the interest of the Queensland public to cancel his driver’s licence.  Mr Fletcher submits that his interests will be adversely affected if a stay is not granted as he needs to drive to work and to university to sit for his examinations.  He submits that he needs to drive to his doctor’s rooms situated some 25 kilometres from Mr Fletcher’s home to obtain treatment for his chronic asthma condition. 

6. Mr Fletcher submits that his family cannot assist him with driving to his work and university commitments as they are away on holidays until 30 July 2010.  He submits that there are no other persons who could drive him to these commitments.  He is residing alone in his family home and he is responsible for the care of the family dog which suffers from pancreatitis and is under veterinarian treatment.  Mr Fletcher submits that he has limited financial means and he is not a risk to the public.  

7. The respondent opposes a stay of the operation of the cancellation of Mr Fletcher’s driver’s licence on the grounds that a stay would undermine the statutory regime for the regulation of young drivers, it would circumvent a disqualification imposed by another Australian state and granting a stay would send the wrong message to other young drivers that disqualification due to drink driving offences does not adversely impact on licences. 

8. The Tribunal has the power to grant a stay of the operation of the cancellation of Mr Fletcher’s driver’s licence. Section 22 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (the Act) states that the Tribunal can make an order to stay a decision if it considers it desirable after having regard to the interests of any person whose interests may be affected by the making of, or declining of, a stay order, having regard to any submissions made to the Tribunal by the decision maker and having regard to the public interest. 

9. Mr Fletcher has identified how in several respects his interests will be adversely affected if his driver’s licence is not returned to him at this stage.  The Tribunal accepts his submissions that his work and university commitments and his personal travel arrangements will be adversely affected if he cannot drive while the review application is being considered.

10. The respondent relies essentially on public interest issues in opposing the granting of a stay in this case. The Tribunal accepts that there is a statutory regime in place that regulates the driving of vehicles on public roads and that the public interest is promoted in general by the respondent enforcing that regime to ensure the safe operation of traffic on the roads.      

11. Permission to drive a car on the public roads in Queensland is not automatically granted as of right.  A person must hold an appropriate licence to drive issued by the respondent under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Driver Licensing) Regulations 1999 and must comply with the conditions of the licence and with the laws relating to road use. The legislature has enacted provisions that recognise that a breach of the relevant transport operation laws should have an impact on the permission granted to a person to drive on public roads. 

12. It is in the public interest that the respondent is able to conduct its statutory duties and functions, while subject to review by this Tribunal, in such a manner that the respondent is not unnecessarily impeded in ensuring the safe operation of traffic on public roads.  Drink driving is a serious offence and is implicated in a high proportion of deaths and injuries caused by road accidents.  Drink driving is not condoned by the law and severe measures are generally applied by the law to indicate the public displeasure about the combination of excessive alcohol intake and driving on the public roads.   

13. Mr Fletcher has not submitted that there is no public transport available for his travel purposes nor that he will be completely unable to attend to his work and study commitments if he does not possess a driver’s licence.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that in this case the interests of Mr Fletcher in not being impeded in the manner in which he chooses to travel to work and university should take precedence over the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the statutory regime for the regulation of the safe use of public roads.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the public interest should prevail in this case. 

14. The Tribunal is not satisfied that it is desirable to make an order staying the operation of the cancellation of Mr Fletcher’s driver’s licence pending the outcome of the review of the decision of the respondent.  The application for a stay is dismissed.