Police v Collins

[2013] QMC 26

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Police v Collins [2013] QMC 26

PARTIES:

POLICE

(prosecution)

v

MICHAEL ROBERT COLLINS

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG141291/13(1)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Complaint

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

11 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Toowoomba

HEARING DATE:

27 September 2013

MAGISTRATE:

Ryan K

ORDER:

Not guilty

CATCHWORDS:

VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC – Power of State Penalties Enforcement Register to suspend driver licence – where defendant making payments to reduce debt – criminality of conduct

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – meaning of “must” and “may” – weight given to explanatory notes – purpose and objects of State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Qld)

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Qld)

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1994 (Qld)

Commissioner of Police v Kirby [2010] QDC 110
Drivas v Bobbermen [2011] QDC 36
Olver and Manz v Commissioner of Police [2013] QDC 9
Queensland Police Service v Cavendish [2013] QMC
Soames v Hogan [2012] QDC 160
Strickland v Klupfel [2013] QDC 210

Van Kuik v Zuanetti [2012] QDC 116

COUNSEL:

Kiesecker (Constable) for prosecution

D Haberman for defendant

SOLICITORS:

Prosecution on own behalf

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for defendant

1. Mr Collins has been charged that pursuant to Section 7(1) and (3)(F) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, he drove a motor vehicle on Tor Street, Toowoomba whilst his licence was SPER suspended.

1. Mr Collins has entered a plea of not guilty on the basis that he has been making regular payments to reduce his SPER debt, with payments being made without Mr Collins having entered into an instalment payment plan “in the approved form”.  This then raises the question as to the power of SPER to suspend his licence when he has continued to make payments to reduce his SPER debt.

1. The hearing consisted of submissions and reference to the defendant’s SPER fine history report. No verbal evidence was called. This matter came on for hearing immediately following the delivery of my decision in QPS v Cavendish.[1]

   [1] [2013] QMC

The Legislation

1. The State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 came into force on 20 November 2000.  The objects of the Act are set out in Section 4.  They are –

“(a) maintaining the integrity of fines as a viable sentencing or punitive option for offenders; and

(b) maintaining confidence in the justice system by enhancing the way fines and oth        er money penalties may be enforced; and

(c) reducing the cost to the State of enforcing fines and other money penalties.”

1. In order to achieve these objects, the Act established the State Penalties Enforcement Register, commonly known as SPER.  SPER’s functions are set out in Section 8 as –

“(2) ……..

collecting amounts payable to SPER under this or another Act;

administering the making of enforcement orders;

taking enforcement action under this Act.

(3) The functions must be performed in accordance with the SPER charter.”

1. The SPER charter is set out in Section 9 and…