Freilich v. Lambert

Case [2007] QDC 157


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

  1. On 27 July 2005 the appellant (Mr Freilich) was driving his Daewoo motor vehicle (the Daewoo) on Hooker Boulevard, Broadbeach, Queensland.

  1. At the same time and place Senior Constable Barker of the Queensland Police Service was performing random traffic registration and driver’s licence checks.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. Senior Constable Barker wrote out and issued to Mr Freilich two traffic offence notices.  

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Freilich v Lambert [2007] QDC 157
Case
[2007] QDC 157
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Freilich v Lambert, the defendant, Lambert, appealed against his conviction for driving a motor vehicle without a registration label attached. Lambert had been found in possession of a thing purporting to be a number plate. The appeal was based on Lambert's assertion that he had been acting under duress from a third party, which was his insurer, at the time of the offence. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, which dismissed the appeal.

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.