Police v Tormonston - [2009] QMC 12

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Police v Tormonston [2009] QMC 12
PARTIES:	POLICE (complainant) v JEFF RUSSEL TORMONSTON (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	MAG125354/09(2)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Charge
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	10 December 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Ipswich
HEARING DATE:	3 December 2009
MAGISTRATE:	McLauchlan MR
ORDER:	Defendant is found guilty of the offence charged. Submissions on sentence to be heard.
CATCHWORDS:	TRAFFIC LAW – OFFENCES - driving without a licence and while disqualified – previously disqualified by a Queensland court from holding or obtaining a driver licence - defendant held a current Tasmanian licence – general authority for holder of non-Queensland licence to drive under that licence in Queensland – whether disqualification in Queensland operated to remove authority to drive under non-Queensland licence – meaning of “valid non-Queensland driver licence” – effect of Queensland disqualification under Tasmanian law to suspend licence in Tasmania – comparison of similar laws in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 78(1), s 79(2AA), s 86(2)(a), s 127(2)(b), definitions of “Australian driver licence”, “corresponding document”, “corresponding law”, “driver licence”, “interstate licence”, “licence”, “non-Queensland driver licence”, “permit” Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Driver Licensing) Regulation 1999 (Qld), s26, s 30B, s 35, definition of “valid” Vehicle and Transport Act 1999 (Tas), s 19 Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 2008 (NSW), s 99 Road Safety (Drivers) Regulation 1999 (Vic), s 221 Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA), s 97A Santosa v Guerin [2007] QDC 335 Hall v Bobbermen [2009] QDC 188
COUNSEL:	Thomas for defendant
SOLICITORS:

This case concerns an interesting question in relation to interpretation of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 – TORUM, and the related Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Driver Licensing) Regulation 1999 – TORUM-DL.

The defendant is charged pursuant to s 78(1) TORUM with driving a motor vehicle while not holding a driver licence authorising him to drive, and while he was disqualified by a court order from holding or obtaining a driver licence. That subsection provides:

78 Driving of motor vehicle without a driver licence prohibited

A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a road unless the person holds a driver licence authorising the person to drive the vehicle on the road.

Maximum penalty –

if the person committed the offence while the person was disqualified, by any court order, from holding or obtaining a driver licence – 60 penalty units or 18 months imprisonment; or

otherwise – 40 penalty units or 1 year’s imprisonment.

S 78(3) further provides:

(3) If the court convicts a person of an offence against subsection (1) and any of the following circumstances apply, the court, in addition to imposing a penalty, must disqualify the person from holding or obtaining a Queensland driver licence for the period mentioned in relation to the circumstances –

if the person committed the offence while the person was disqualified, by any court order, from holding or obtaining a driver licence – for…

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 Police v Tormonston

Details

AGLC: Police v Tormonston [2009] QMC 12
Case: [2009] QMC 12
Decision Date: 10 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Police v Tormonston was a case in which the defendant was charged with driving without a licence and while disqualified. The defendant held a current Tasmanian licence but had previously been disqualified by a Queensland court from holding or obtaining a driver licence. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the disqualification in Queensland operated to remove the defendant's authority to drive under a non-Queensland licence, and what the meaning of “valid non-Queensland driver licence” was under Tasmanian law.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Road Transport Act 2004 (Tas) and found that a person disqualified from holding a licence in another jurisdiction was not deemed to hold a valid non-Queensland driver licence in Tasmania. The court compared similar laws in New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia and found that they were consistent with the Tasmanian legislation. The court also considered the policy behind the legislation, which was to prevent disqualified drivers from obtaining a licence in another jurisdiction and then driving in Tasmania. The court concluded that the defendant's Queensland disqualification had the effect of removing his authority to drive under his Tasmanian licence in Queensland and that he was therefore guilty of the offence charged.

The court found the defendant guilty of the offence charged and directed that submissions on sentence be heard. The court did not make any orders suspending or cancelling the defendant's Tasmanian licence at that time, as it was awaiting the outcome of the sentence hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Defendant is found guilty of the offence charged. Submissions on sentence to be heard.

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.