Steers v Registrar of Motor Vehicles - [2000] TASSC 5

[2000] TASSC 5

CITATION: Steers v Registrar of Motor Vehicles [2000] TASSC 5

PARTIES:  STEERS, Frank Lyle
  v
  REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 14/1999 BDR
DELIVERED ON:  18 February 2000
DELIVERED AT:  Burnie
HEARING DATE:  3 February 2000
JUDGMENT OF:  Cox CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Traffic Law - Licensing of drivers - Tasmania - Generally - Power of court to grant restrictive licence - Onus upon applicant to show grant not contrary to public interest - Desirability of presenting deterrent effect of disqualification.

Hayes v Peterson [1972] Tas SR 86; In re Stokman [1978] Tas SR (NC) 4, 17/1978; Driver v Darling 31/1991; Davies v Deverell [1992] 1 Tas R 214, applied.
Traffic Act 1925 (Tas), s36(4).
Aust Dig Traffic Law [25]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  M Dickenson
             Respondent:  L Lodge
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  McGrath & Co
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2000] TASSC 5
Number of paragraphs: 18

Serial No 5/2000
File No LCA 14/1999 BDR

FRANK LYLE STEERS v REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COX CJ

18 February 2000

This is an appeal against the refusal of a magistrate to grant the applicant a restricted licence in accordance with the Traffic Act 1925 ("the Act"), s36.

The applicant sought such a licence in consequence of his having been disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle for six months by virtue of the provisions of the Act, s43E(1), (4) and (4AA). These subsections provide that where a person accumulates during a three year period 12 or more demerit points in respect of prescribed driving offences and the date of the commission of the last offence is not later than three years after the end of a previous period of disqualification imposed under the Demerit Point System, the period of disqualification is six months. The period is three months where the points are accumulated in any three year period and there has been no previous such disqualification imposed and it is twelve months if the date of the commission of the last offence is not later than six years after the end of the previous period of disqualification and there has been yet a further period of disqualification imposed. The applicant had accumulated 13 demerit points in the period 22 February 1997 to 18 October 1999 by the acceptance of five infringement notices for the offence of speeding. The last four of these offences were for exceeding the speed limit by more than 15 kilometres per hour but less than 29 kilometres per hour, the first for exceeding the limit by less than 15 kilometres per hour. The applicant's record of convictions (including those deemed convictions by virtue of acceptance of infringement notices) prior to that period of time consisted of four for speeding between November 1988 and February 1992, after which he was disqualified for 90 days in consequence of amassing more than the then required number of points. This disqualification took effect…

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 Steers v Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Details

AGLC: Steers v Registrar of Motor Vehicles [2000] TASSC 5
Case: [2000] TASSC 5
Decision Date: 18 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Frank Lyle Steers appealed against the refusal of a magistrate to grant him a restricted licence under the Traffic Act 1925. The applicant had been disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle for six months due to accumulating 13 demerit points within a three-year period. The applicant sought a restricted licence to drive for his employment as a livestock agent between 7:30 am and 8:30 pm from Monday to Friday. The magistrate refused the application on the ground that it was contrary to the public interest. The applicant alleged that the magistrate failed to properly exercise his discretion by not taking into account relevant factors in making his decision. The applicant also claimed that the magistrate failed to act in accordance with the rules of natural justice by not allowing him to give evidence-in-chief, not allowing his counsel to make submissions, rushing the hearing, and not providing sufficient reasons for his decision.

The Court held that the magistrate did not fail to properly exercise his discretion as he had considered all relevant factors in making his decision. The Court found that the applicant's repeated acts of speeding were a potential danger to other road users, and the magistrate was not persuaded that the applicant would not continue to offend in this way. The Court also held that there was no denial of natural justice as the applicant's counsel was not denied the right to make an address or misled in any way. The Court further held that the magistrate's decision not to invite the applicant's counsel to address him at the conclusion of the evidence did not involve any miscarriage of justice as the facts were not in dispute.

The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the magistrate's decision was correct. The Court held that the grant of a restricted licence to the applicant would be contrary to the public interest as it would reduce the deterrent effect of the disqualification. The Court emphasised the importance of maintaining the deterrent effect of disqualifications imposed under the Act and found that the applicant's repeated acts of speeding were a potential danger to other road users. The Court held that the applicant's extensive driving experience and knowledge of the placement of signs in town areas did not mitigate his repeated acts of speeding. The Court also held that the applicant's age and the fact that he had not been involved in a collision with another motor vehicle were not relevant factors in determining whether the grant of a restricted licence would be contrary to the public interest.

Orders