Police v Martin

Case [2009] QMC 16


MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Police v Martin [2009] QMC 16

PARTIES:

POLICE

(prosecution)

v

RYAN ANTHONY MARTIN

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG119923/08(5)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Charge – Summary Hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

19 March 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

23 February 2009

MAGISTRATE:

Verra LP

ORDER:

I find the defendant not guilty

CATCHWORDS:

TRAFFIC LAW – LICENCING OF DRIVERS – disqualification of drivers licence for high speed offence – service of notice of suspension – whether notice was served in time

Transport Operations (Road Use management) Act 1995, s 30A

COUNSEL:

Greggery for defendant

SOLICITORS:

Prosecution appeared on own behalf

O’Shea & Dyer for defendant

  1. The defendant is charged that on 22 June 2008 at Townsville in the Magistrates Courts District of Townsville in the State of Queensland he did drive a motor vehicle namely a car on a road namely Goldring Street Townsville the said defendant not being at that time the holder of a driver licence authorising him to drive that vehicle on that road and further at the time of committing the offence the said defendant being a person to whom the provisions of section 78(3)(d) of the Transport Operations (Road Use management) Act 1995 (the Act) applied, was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence.

  1. At the completion of the summary hearing and submissions on 23 February 2009, I remanded the defendant to 26 February 2009 to deliver my decision and on that date I informed the parties that I required further time to prepare my decision. Since that date the prosecution and the defence have provided further submissions and those written submissions have been marked exhibits 7 and 8 respectively.

  1. By virtue of s 78(6)(b)(ii)  of the Act disqualified driver means “a person who  is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence because the person was convicted of an offence against the Transport Operations (Road use management – Road Rules) Regulation 1999 , section 20, for driving more than 40 km/h over the speed limit.” Schedule 4 of the Act provides that convicting a person includes the person paying a penalty under the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999.

  1. The prosecution case, simply stated, is that the Chief Executive suspended the defendant’s driver licence for the period starting on 21 January 2008 and ending on 20 July 2008 and that this suspension was effected by virtue of written notice given to the defendant in accordance with s 30A of the Transport Operation (Road use Management – Driver Licensing) Regulation 1999 (the Regulation). The defendant admits that he was driving a motor vehicle on 22 June 2008.[1]

    [1] Exhibit 1

  1. The onus lies on the prosecution to prove all elements of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant makes several admissions which are set out in exhibit 1. There is no dispute that the defendant was driving a motor vehicle as alleged in the charge. The defence maintains that the provisions of s 30A of the Regulation…

Continue reading Police v Martin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Police v Martin [2009] QMC 16
Case
[2009] QMC 16
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Police v Martin was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The defendant was charged with a high-speed offence, resulting in the disqualification of his driver's licence. The key issue was whether the notice of suspension was served within the required time frame. The defendant argued that the notice was not served in a timely manner, and thus, the disqualification was invalid.

The legal issue for the court to determine was whether the notice of suspension was served within the stipulated period as required by the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic). The defendant's counsel argued that the notice was not served within the six-month period prescribed by the Act. The prosecution contended that the notice was indeed served in a timely fashion. The court had to decide on the interpretation of the statutory provisions and the facts surrounding the service of the notice.

The court examined the evidence and concluded that the notice of suspension was not served within the required timeframe. The court found that the notice was served one day outside the six-month period as stipulated by the Act. Consequently, the court held that the disqualification was not valid. The defendant's argument was accepted, and he was found not guilty of the charge. The court ordered that the disqualification of the defendant's driver's licence be set aside, as it was not validly imposed due to the late service of the notice of suspension.

Orders

Orders of the court

I find the defendant not guilty

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.