Moore, Re

[2007] QDC 75

[2007] QDC 075

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE NASE

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY
MICHAEL LEONARD MOORE FOR THE REMOVAL
OF A LICENCE DISQUALIFICATION

ROCKHAMPTON

..DATE 02/03/2007

ORDER

HIS HONOUR:  On 3 February 2004 Michael Moore (the present applicant) was convicted in the District Court at Rockhampton on his own plea of guilty of an offence of operating a motor vehicle dangerously.

The offence was charged with a circumstance of aggravation; that he was at the time adversely affected by an intoxicating substance.  The sentence imposed was one of 18 months imprisonment suspended after six months with an operational period of two years.

He was additionally disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of five years. The present application is for an order lifting the remaining period of disqualification under section 131 (2) Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. The applicant has to date, therefore, served out about three years and one month of the five year period.

In support of the application evidence has been placed before the Court from his employer who is his older brother and from the applicant in person.  Both the applicant and his employer, Mr Darren Moore, gave evidence and were cross-examined by
Mr Lewis who appears on behalf of the respondent.

A period of disqualification imposed in these circumstances has both a punitive and a protective element.  In this case, the applicant's history of traffic offences was a significant factor in the imposition of the period of disqualification.

Although the period of disqualification is part of the sentence order, my interpretation of the sentencing Judge's remarks are that the length of disqualification was primarily a reflection of his bad traffic history.

At the time of the offence, the applicant was, I think, aged 23.  His life at that time was in disarray.  He was receiving medication for depression.  The sentencing Judge noted he had been on medication or at least receiving treatment for depression for about six months before the driving.

Since his release from prison after serving the six months of the 18 months sentence, he has worked consistently and has largely turned his life around.  He has assumed responsibility for the care of his young son, Riley.  He lives at home with his mother.  His employment since October of 2006 has been with his brother who works as a self-employed builder.

I accept the evidence that the fact the applicant does not hold a driver's licence is a real problem for him at work and, of course, for his employer.  If he had a licence, there is a prospect of his commencing an apprenticeship as a carpenter.

After listening to all of the evidence and reading the material placed before the Court, I accept the applicant has successfully integrated back to the community and I also accept that if he did hold a driver's licence, it would enable him to, in effect, take the next logical step with some confidence.

I note the trial Judge recorded that the applicant had not driven since the offence.  If that earlier period of
non-driving is acknowledged, the total period he has not driven is around the four year mark.  These matters are often difficult because the disqualification order may, in reality, be part of an integrated sentence in which a balance is struck between a period of disqualification and a period of imprisonment.

In this case, I think that the length of the period of disqualification was largely determined by his past driving history and the dominant considerations related to the protection of the community, rather than punishment of him as an individual for the offence.

I also accept, as I think I have said, that the applicant has taken advantage of the time since his release from prison to take control over his life and to, in effect, rehabilitate himself.  Those efforts that he has made means that the protective aspects of the order of disqualification are not subverted by allowing him the opportunity to obtain a driver's licence at this point.

At the same time, the ability to obtain a driver's licence will contribute to his continued reintegration in to the community.  In all the circumstances, I am persuaded that it would be an appropriate exercise of discretion to lift the order of disqualification.

Now, what form should the order take?

MR LEWIS:  Unfortunately, your Honour, I drafted one in the opposite, of course, but simply the application for removal of absolute disqualification is granted.

HIS HONOUR:  That the application for?

MR LEWIS:  Removal of absolute disqualification is granted.  Sorry.  Yes, I beg your pardon.  You should do absolutes.  Removal of the five year disqualification be granted forthwith.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, all right, and that is all I have to make.

Well, it is ordered that the application for removal of the period of disqualification is lifted forthwith.

-----