Robert Stanojlovic v Director of Public Prosecutions (on behalf of Steven Emil Kokas) and County Court of Victoria

The appellant, Robert Stanojlovic, was charged and convicted under the Road Safety (Drivers) Regulations 2009 for failing to display P plates while operating a vehicle as a probationary driver. The respondent, Director of Public Prosecutions on behalf of Steven Emil Kokas, sought to uphold the conviction. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, and subsequently, an appeal was lodged with the higher court. The central issue before the court was whether a defence of honest and reasonable mistake could be available for the offence of a probationary driver failing to display P plates. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the regulation, which is expressed in mandatory language and is part of a graduated licensing scheme directed to road safety, allows for such a defence.

The court examined the nature of the offence and the legislative intent behind the regulation. It noted that the offence was largely avoidable and was regulatory in nature, aimed at ensuring road safety. The court considered precedent cases, such as Proudman v Dayman and He Kaw Teh v The Queen, to understand the application of honest and reasonable mistake in the context of mandatory regulatory offences. The court held that in cases of strict liability and regulatory offences, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake is generally not available unless expressly provided by the statute. Given the mandatory language of the regulation and the legislative intent to ensure compliance with road safety standards, the court concluded that the defence of honest and reasonable mistake did not apply in this case.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The reasoning was that the offence was regulatory, the regulation was mandatory, and the defence of honest and reasonable mistake was not applicable. The higher court found that the legislative intent was to ensure strict compliance with the requirement to display P plates as a means of promoting road safety, and any mistake, even if honest and reasonable, could not negate the liability for the offence. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.