Morton v Scott - [2016] TASSC 51

[2016] TASSC 51

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Morton v Scott [2016] TASSC 51

PARTIES:  MORTON, Andrew (Senior Constable)
  v
  SCOTT, Alistair Charles Stuart

FILE NO:  1994/2016
DELIVERED ON:  30 September 2016
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  21 September 2016
JUDGMENT OF:  Tennent J

CATCHWORDS:

Traffic Law – Licensing of drivers – Tasmania – Generally – Restricted licence – Public interest – Need to maintain the deterrent effect of orders for disqualification – Relevance of prior convictions and prior successful applications for restricted licences.

Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 (Tas), s 18.
Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 (Tas), s 19(1B).
Lowe v Mansfield [1988] TASSC 66; Davies v Deverell (1992) 2 Tas R 214; Nunn v Brazendale [2001] TASSC 13, referred to.
Aust Dig Traffic Law [1056]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  S Thompson
             Respondent:  S Chopping
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  Steven Chopping Barrister & Solicitor

Judgment Number: [2016] TASSC 51
Number of paragraphs: 22

Serial No 51/2016
File No 1994/2016

SENIOR CONSTABLE ANDREW MORTON
v ALISTAIR CHARLES STUART SCOTT

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TENNENT J

30 September 2016

On 23 May 2016, the respondent was dealt with by Magistrate Webster in respect of one count of drive a motor vehicle while exceeding the prescribed alcohol limit contrary to the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 (the Act), s 6(1). The respondent was convicted, and fined $1,232. He was disqualified from driving for one year with effect from that date. The respondent had filed an application for a restricted licence prior to being dealt with, and that was adjourned for hearing to 3 June 2016. The hearing commenced that day, and was ultimately completed on 29 June. On that day the application was granted. An order was made in the following terms:
"Conditions and/or Restrictions:
1The applicant is permitted to drive his Nissan Navara Ute, registered number C85ZH or my Isuzu Truck, Registered number A80RK from his home to places at which he is required to attend in the course of his occupation as a builder, in the course of his occupation and to return to his home between 6.30am and 8.00pm Mondays to Saturdays inclusive.
All journeys are to be undertaken by the shortest most practicable route
The applicant is not to commit any moving offences against the Vehicle and Traffic Act or Regulations made thereunder
The applicant is not to be found driving the vehicle whilst there is a licenced driver present in the vehicle.
The applicant is not to drive whilst any alcohol or illicit drugs are present in his body
The applicant is to keep a log book in his motor vehicle at all times which is to be filled in before the commencement of any trip recording time of departure, destination, purpose of journey, and time of arrival
The applicant is to carry a copy of the restricted licence together with a copy of this authorisation at all times whilst driving…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Morton v Scott

Details

AGLC: Morton v Scott [2016] TASSC 51
Case: [2016] TASSC 51
Decision Date: 30 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Morton v Scott involved a challenge to the revocation of a restricted driver's licence by the Tasmanian authorities. The applicant, Morton, sought to overturn a decision to revoke his licence, which had been granted on the condition of using a driving restriction device. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the revocation of Morton's restricted licence was justified in light of his prior convictions and history of applying for and obtaining restricted licences. The court needed to consider the balance between granting restricted licences to those who demonstrate they can safely drive under specific conditions and the need to maintain the deterrent effect of disqualification orders. The court had to determine if the repeated history of licence restrictions and revocations warranted the continued revocation of Morton's licence.

The Supreme Court found that the considerations of public safety and the deterrent effect of disqualification orders were paramount. Given Morton's history of convictions and previous applications for restricted licences, the court concluded that the revocation was necessary to uphold the integrity of the licensing system. The court held that the need to deter unsafe driving practices outweighed the potential hardship to Morton. The decision was made in the interest of maintaining the deterrent effect of disqualification orders and ensuring that the road safety standards were upheld.

The court ordered that the revocation of Morton's restricted driver's licence be upheld, and no further restricted licence would be granted to him until such time as he could demonstrate a sustained period of safe driving and compliance with the conditions of a licence. The decision underscored the importance of balancing individual circumstances with the broader public interest in road safety.

Orders