DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Freilich v Lambert [2007] QDC 157
PARTIES:
DAVID MARTIN FREILICH
Appellant
and
DAVID GEOFFREY LAMBERT
Respondent
FILE NO/S:
D423/06
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
1 June 2007
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
21 May 2007
JUDGE:
Samios DCJ
ORDER:
Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
Appeal – Appeal against conviction – no registration label attached to motor vehicle – possession of thing that purported to be number plate - alleged duress on part of third party insurer
Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995
s 13(2)(e), Sch 4
Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Vehicle Registration) Regulation 1999 s 4A, s 10, s 11, s 23, s 33(1) and s 76(1)(a)
Carnes v Essenberg & Ors [1999] QCA 339 CON
Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1988) 19 NSWLR 40 at 46 APP
Hawker Pacific Proprietary Limited v Helicopter Charter Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 298 APP
Hubner v Erbacher (2004) QDC 345 APP
Smith v William Charlick Ltd (1924) 34 CLR 38 CON
Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation (1983) 1 AC 366 at 400 APP
COUNSEL:
Appellant in person
Mr Grealy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Appellant in person
CW Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for the respondent
On 27 July 2005 the appellant (Mr Freilich) was driving his Daewoo motor vehicle (the Daewoo) on Hooker Boulevard, Broadbeach, Queensland.
At the same time and place Senior Constable Barker of the Queensland Police Service was performing random traffic registration and driver’s licence checks.
Senior Constable Barker saw the Daewoo bearing what appeared to be current Queensland registration plate 1FREEDOM on the rear of the Daewoo. He did a registration check and this revealed that the registration was not known to Queensland Transport.
He subsequently stopped the Daewoo and spoke to Mr Freilich who was the driver of the Daewoo. Mr Freilich was polite and cooperative and produced his current driver’s licence when asked to do so. Senior Constable Barker also observed the Daewoo was not displaying a current Queensland registration label.
Senior Constable Barker asked Mr Freilich if the Daewoo was registered. Mr Freilich replied to the effect it was not registered in Queensland, but it was registered under common law.
After some further short conversation with Mr Freilich, Senior Constable Barker, with the assistance of another police officer, located the chassis number of the Daewoo. A check then revealed that the Daewoo was currently registered in Mr Freilich’s name and should have been bearing Queensland registration plates 041-EXZ.
Senior Constable Barker wrote out and issued to Mr Freilich two traffic offence notices.
A complaint and summons was issued on 18 January 2006 charging Mr Freilich with two breaches of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Vehicle Registration) Regulation 1999 (the Regulation) that:
“Charge 1.On the 27th day of July 2005, when on a road namely Hooker Boulevard, Broadbeach, David Martin Freilich being the registered operator of a vehicle namely a Daewoo motor vehicle, registration number 041EXZ, failed…
Continue reading Freilich v. Lambert
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Freilich v Lambert [2007] QDC 157
- Case
- [2007] QDC 157
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the defendant's actions constituted duress, which would negate the intent to commit an offence, and whether the insurer's conduct could be considered as duress. The court considered the legal principles governing duress, specifically whether the defendant's will had been overborne by threats from an external party, and whether the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to avoid the commission of the offence.
The County Court found that Lambert's assertion of duress was not credible. The court concluded that the defendant had not demonstrated that he had been under an immediate threat of significant harm, nor had he shown that he had taken reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence. The court held that the insurer's actions did not amount to duress as they did not involve a threat of unlawful harm. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Lambert's conviction stood.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.