Halls v The Registrar of Motor Vehicles SA

[2015] SASCFC 123

Supreme Court of South Australia

(Full Court: Permission to Appeal in Private)

HALLS v THE REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES SA

[2015] SASCFC 123

Judgment of The Full Court

(The Honourable Acting Chief Justice Gray, The Honourable Justice Sulan and The Honourable Justice Stanley)

1 September 2015

TRAFFIC LAW - LICENSING OF DRIVERS - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEALS

TRAFFIC LAW - LICENSING OF DRIVERS - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - DISQUALIFICATION, CANCELLATION OR SUSPENSION OF LICENCES - GENERALLY

Application for permission to appeal to the Full Court against a decision of a single Judge of this Court.  The Judge of this Court refused permission to appeal against the decision of a District Court Judge, who upheld the decision of the respondent to suspend the applicant’s driver’s licence on the basis that the applicant had suffered a seizure.

Held per the Court:

1.       The applicant does not have an arguable case that the Judge of this Court made any error of law or fact.

2.       Application for permission to appeal dismissed.

Halls v The Registrar of Motor Vehicles of SA, Department Of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure [2014] SADC 204; Halls v The Registrar of Motor Vehicles of SA [2015] SASC 71, considered.

HALLS v THE REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES SA
[2015] SASCFC 123

Full Court:      Gray ACJ, Sulan and Stanley JJ

THE COURT.

1. This is an application for permission to appeal.

2. Following the receipt of medical advice that the applicant had suffered a seizure and was, as a result, likely to endanger the public if he were to drive a motor vehicle, a delegate of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspended the applicant’s driver’s licence from 18 February 2014.  On 2 September 2014, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles conducted a review and confirmed the decision of the delegate. 

3. On 5 December 2014, a Judge of the District Court of South Australia dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of the Registrar.[1]  The Judge found that there was no cogent reason or evidentiary basis to depart from the conclusions reached by the Registrar.  The Judge considered that the original decision to suspend the applicant’s licence was properly made and that the further material considered on the review provided support for that decision. 

   [1]    Halls v The Registrar of Motor Vehicles of SA, Department Of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure [2014] SADC 204.

4. On 15 May 2015, a Judge of this Court refused the applicant permission to appeal.  The learned Judge concluded:[2]

   I have attempted to distil from the material supplied by Mr Halls what he says is wrong with the decision of the learned Judge.

   It is clear from the affidavit that Mr Halls believes that he does not suffer from seizures and/or epilepsy. It appears that he will accept no other position. The learned Judge found to the contrary. The evidence before her was overwhelming and clearly established that indeed Mr Halls does suffer from epilepsy.

   In my opinion, the learned Judge dealt with Mr Halls and his case fairly. She noted that Mr Halls challenged the medical evidence upon which the Registrar and the Registrar’s delegate formed the view that he is not competent to drive a motor vehicle. The learned Judge admitted further evidence on that issue as she was entitled to do. Having heard all of the evidence and submissions, the learned Judge found that there was no cogent reason to depart from the conclusions of the Registrar’s delegate and the Registrar. The learned Judge found: “In my opinion the delegate and the Registrar were entirely justified in reaching the conclusions that they did. I reach similar conclusions.”[3]

   [2]    Halls v The Registrar of Motor Vehicles of SA [2015] SASC 71, [30]-[32].

   [3]    Halls v The Registrar of Motor Vehicles of SA, Department Of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure [2014] SADC 204, [58].

5. The applicant has now sought permission to appeal to the Full Court from the decision of the Judge of this Court.  We do not consider that there is an arguable case that the Judge of this Court made any error of law or fact.  We do not consider that there is any reason to doubt the decision of the Registrar or his delegate, or the decision of the District Court Judge.  We do not consider that the interests of justice warrant a grant of permission. 

6. The application for permission to appeal is dismissed.