Reiman v Queensland Commissioner of Police

[2011] QDC 374

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Reiman v Queensland Commissioner of Police [2011] QDC 374

PARTIES:

STEVEN LEONARD REIMAN 

(Applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

(Respondent)

FILE NO:

 BD40 of 2011

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

24/11/2011

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

 24/11/2011

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

1) Application granted

2) All absolute disqualifications in respect of the applicant, Steven Leonard Reiman set aside effective 24 November 2011

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW –   application for removal of absolute disqualifications – where affidavit material evidenced change of lifestyle – where very long period of time without license

LEGISLATION:

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s131(2), s131(2C)

CASES:

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared self-represented

K Boileau (solicitor)for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared self-represented

Commissioner of Police for the respondent

1.HIS HONOUR: This is an application pursuant to the provisions of s.131(2) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, in which the applicant, Steven Leonard Reiman, seeks orders for the removal of absolute disqualifications imposed against him.

2.This matter has come before me on a previous occasion and there were a number of issues which I raised with Mr Reiman, in particular that the application, as originally framed, failed to identify all of the absolute disqualifications which were outstanding against him and therefore it would have been pointless for me to decide it. In addition, I requested from Mr Reiman further information, both about the circumstances of the offending and the subsequent matters which were necessary for me to consider pursuant to the relevant provisions of s.131(2C) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act (TORUMA).

3.Mr Reiman has now supplied an affidavit filed 9 November 2011 which, although relatively skimpy, in my view, now places some "meat on the bones" in respect of the issues of the offending and what has occurred subsequently.

4.The absolute disqualifications from which Mr Reiman seeks an order are as follows: (1) 26 May 1998, District Court Beenleigh; (2) 19 January 1989, Magistrates Court Brisbane; (3) 27 September 1990, Magistrates Court Holland Park; (4) 20 July 1993, Magistrates Court Toowoomba; (5) 25 June 1998, Magistrates Court Holland Park; (6) 21 May 1998, Magistrates Court Holland Park; and (7) 24 January 2000, Magistrates Court Holland Park.

5.The provisions of s.131(2) of TORUMA provide that an application can be made for the removal of an absolute disqualification at any time after two years. As is clear in this case, the most recent disqualification was almost 12 years ago, so there is no doubt that Mr Reiman has satisfied that provision of the legislation.

6.The hurdle that Mr Reiman then is required to meet is that set out in TORUMA s.131(2C), which relevantly provides: "Upon hearing any such application the judge of ... the District Court ... may, as is thought proper, having regard to the character of the person disqualified and the person's conduct subsequent to the order, the nature of the offence, and any other circumstances of the case, either by order remove the disqualification as from such date as may be specified in the order or refuse the application."

7.Mr Reiman, in his affidavit, attests to having essentially a fluid lifestyle at the time of the relevant offences.  As he describes it, "Most of the time I was staying with people that I hardly knew," and also frankly attests to the fact that he had been in and out of prison for short periods of time.  He, a little obliquely but again quite frankly, indicates in his affidavit (paragraph 5, affidavit of Steven Reiman sworn 8 November 2011) that at this time in his life he "spent a lot of time drinking and taking drugs".

8.Although Mr Reiman has not been specific about the circumstances leading to each of the offences, it's clear, in a very broad-brush sense, that he acknowledges that his life at the time was substantially dysfunctional and that he accumulated the seven identified absolute disqualifications in the amended application for removal of disqualification.

9.The issue then is what has occurred since.  It is apparent from the material placed before me that there have been no criminal convictions since the 23rd of August 2000 in the Cairns Magistrates Court, for which the applicant received a wholly suspended gaol sentence, and the traffic history similarly reflects no appearances since the 7th of February 2001 in the Cairns Magistrates Court.

10.I note that Mr Reiman, in his affidavit, outlines a number of factors which he identifies as assisting him to change his lifestyle.  These are (1) the fact that he's become a father; (2) the loss of a younger brother in a motor vehicle accident as a result of alcohol; (3) the assistance of family and friends; and (4) regular employment.

11.In particular, in respect of the current circumstances, Mr Reiman identifies his employment for Adam Carey Pools where he has worked for just over two years.  He again quite frankly indicates that his employer has been able to drop him off and collect him from work sites but (unsurprisingly) he indicates that his work opportunities and his employer's business would benefit substantially if he were able to obtain a licence.

12.Again briefly but tellingly in his affidavit, Mr Reiman indicates that: "I have grown up a great deal in the last 10 years and wish to improve my life as best I can."

13.In all of the circumstances and given the response filed on behalf of the Commissioner of the Police, which is that the Court should exercise some discretion but essentially the Queensland Police Service takes a neutral attitude to the application, I consider that Mr Reiman has persuaded me that it is appropriate, particularly given the very long period of time with which he has been without a licence, his recognition of the factors which led him into the repeat offending and the repeat absolute disqualifications and what seem to have been the important positive socialisation effects of work, family and a recognition of the clear dangers of drugs and alcohol, that it is appropriate to order that all absolute disqualifications be lifted as of today's date.

14.Accordingly, I order as follows: (1) application granted; (2) all absolute disqualifications in respect of the applicant, Steven Leonard Reiman, be set aside, effective 24 November 2011.

. . .

15.Stand up, please, Mr Reiman.  Mr Reiman, what I've ordered is that all of the absolute disqualifications currently listed against your name be removed.  That, of course, is not the end of it.  That's only one step.  You must now, once you obtain an order from the registry - so you need to go and see them and that'll probably be able to be facilitated fairly quickly today.  So you need to go and see them.  Then you need to go to the Department of Transport.  Because it's been so long since you've held a licence, I suspect that they'll probably require you to do a test again.

16.DEFENDANT:  Yeah.

17.HIS HONOUR:  That's a matter for them.  The most important thing is that you cannot actually drive on a public road until you have firstly obtained the order from this Court; secondly, that you've undertaken any tests the Department of Transport require you to; and thirdly, of course, that they've issued you with a licence appropriate for the class of vehicle that you intend to drive.

18.DEFENDANT:  Yep.

19.HIS HONOUR:  Don't wreck it at this stage, of course, by taking a step too soon and too quickly.

20.DEFENDANT:  Yep.

21.HIS HONOUR:  Follow through all those steps and, whatever you're required to do - you may have to hold a learner's licence for some period of time; I don't know.  They're all matters that the Department of Transport will advise you on, but at this stage what I do want to say is, I wish you all the best.  It seems to me that you have taken very positive steps in your life to turn it around.  The possession of a licence is always a privilege.

22.DEFENDANT:  Yep.

23.HIS HONOUR:  It remains a privilege, and if you were foolish enough to do anything that puts that at risk, then that, in my view, would be very sad because you've taken what seems to me to be very positive steps in 10 years to turn your life around and it would be unfortunate if you were to affect that in any negative way.  I wish you all the best.

. . .