Oberoi v Douglas - [2025] VSC 7

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2024 00596

AMANPREET OBEROI	Plaintiff
and
FIRST CONSTABLE BRENDAN DOUGLAS	First Defendant
THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	GRAY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 November 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 January 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Oberoi v Douglas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 7

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS — Application for orders in the nature of prerogative writs pursuant to O 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Rules) —Special circumstances explaining delay in commencing proceeding — Extension of time granted pursuant to r 56.02(3) of the Rules — Judicial review of County Court order imposing four year driver disqualification for offence under s 49(1)(e) of Road Safety Act 1986 of refusing to comply with a requirement under s 55(1) to accompany a police officer to a place where a sample of breath would be furnished — Plaintiff claiming certiorari and a consequential order for mandamus regarding minimum mandatory disqualification period — Driver licence disqualification for minimum of four years under s 50(1B)(b) if a relevant ‘old offence’ renders a new offence a ‘subsequent offence’ — No error of law established in County Court’s reliance on a certificate issued under s 84(1) for proof of old offence — Road Safety Act 1986 ss 48(2), 49(1), 50(1B), 55(1), 84(1), 90 — Criminal Procedure Act 2009 ss 77(2A), 78, 86 — Road Safety (General) Regulations 2019 reg 74.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr S Hardy	Dib & Associates Lawyers
For the First Defendant	Mr J O’Connor	Office of Public Prosecutions

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Legislative context............................................................................................................................. 2

Factual context.................................................................................................................................... 8

Consideration.................................................................................................................................... 18

Extension of time......................................................................................................................... 19
First ground................................................................................................................................. 20
Second ground............................................................................................................................. 23
Third ground............................................................................................................................... 28

Conclusion and orders.................................................................................................................... 31

HIS HONOUR:

Did the County Court make any of the errors of law alleged by the plaintiff in relying on a certificate issued under s 84(1) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) (RSA) when disqualifying the plaintiff from obtaining a driver licence for four years?

Introduction

The plaintiff was found guilty by a judge of the County Court of an offence under RSA s 49(1)(e) of refusing to comply with a requirement under s 55(1) of the RSA to accompany a police officer to a place where a sample of breath would be furnished.

The prosecution relied on a certificate issued under s 84(1) of the RSA (RSA certificate) to prove that the plaintiff had an ‘old offence’ within the meaning of s 48(2) of the RSA, such as to render the new offence a ‘subsequent offence’ for the purposes of the RSA, making him liable to a mandatory minimum of four years’ disqualification from obtaining a driver licence under s 50(1B)(b) of the RSA. The County Court heard submissions on whether the RSA certificate was valid and admissible. The…

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 Oberoi v Douglas

Details

AGLC: Oberoi v Douglas [2025] VSC 7
Case: [2025] VSC 7
Decision Date: 24 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Oberoi, sought judicial review of a County Court order that imposed a four-year driver disqualification for a breach of the Road Safety Act 1986. The breach involved the refusal to comply with a police officer's requirement to accompany them to provide a breath sample. The plaintiff challenged the disqualification on the basis that it was excessive and sought orders in the nature of prerogative writs, including certiorari and a consequential order for mandamus. The application was made to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the County Court erred in law by imposing a four-year disqualification and whether the court properly relied on a certificate issued under section 84(1) of the Road Safety Act 1986 to establish the previous offence that rendered the current offence a 'subsequent offence'. The court was required to consider the statutory provisions regarding driver disqualification periods, the effect of an old offence on the severity of the penalty for a subsequent offence, and the procedural fairness of the County Court's reliance on the certificate.

The court found no error of law in the County Court's decision. The reliance on the certificate under section 84(1) was deemed valid and sufficient to establish the old offence, thereby triggering the minimum four-year disqualification. The court held that the statutory framework allowed for such penalties in cases where a driver has a prior relevant offence. The certificate was properly issued and the County Court was correct to consider it in determining the appropriate penalty. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the application. The County Court's order imposing the four-year driver disqualification was upheld.

Orders