Vaisevuraki v Glindon

[2008] QDC 55

[2008] QDC 55

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SENIOR JUDGE TRAFFORD-WALKER

No BD2078 of 2007

AMINISITAI SAMUAL VAISEVURAKI	Appellant
and
R K GLINDON	Respondent
No BD2079 of 2007
AMINISITAI SAMUAL VAISEVURAKI	Appellant
and
D STOCKER	Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 14/01/2008

ORDER
HIS HONOUR: The appellant was charged with the following

1

offences: that on the 2nd day of March 2007 he drove a motor
vehicle, namely a motor bike, on a road, namely Wynnum Road,
Morningside, 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, he was a	10
subsection (d) of the Transport Operations (Road Use
person to whom the provisions of Section 78 subsection 3 obtaining a driver's licence.
20
Secondly, he committed an offence on the 28th of May of 2007. On that occasion he drove a motor vehicle on the Bruce Highway at Mount Larcom. The other allegations against him are as in the first offence.
30
On the 9th of July 2007 the appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court at Brisbane. On each, he was fined a sum of money and disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor vehicle licence.
40
The appellant lodged an appeal against the sentence. However, at the hearing of the appeal, it was decided to proceed only with the appeals against licence disqualification.
In relation to the first offence, the appellant was	50

disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor vehicle licence
for a period of seven months, and for the second offence the
period of disqualification was nine months which was ordered 2 ORDER 60

1

to be cumulative on the seven months disqualification.

in force at present and was not in force on the 9th of July of	10
2007. There was, therefore, an error on the sentence. The order for a cumulative period of licence disqualification is quashed.
The facts of the two offences are as follows: in relation to	20
the first offence, at about 10.45 p.m. on the 2nd of March
2007 the appellant was the rider of a motor cycle which
collided with a 32 year old female pedestrian on Wynnum Road,
Morningside. The pedestrian was not crossing the road at a
pedestrian crossing. The appellant was not affected by liquor	30
and there was no evidence to indicate he was travelling at excessive speed.
The appellant stated that he held an R Class licence and
produced a Queensland driver's licence. Records indicated	40
that the appellant was the subject of a high speed suspension for a period of six months from the 8th of February of 2007.
The second matter is that at about 1.22 p.m. on the 28th of
May 2007, police were performing patrol on the Bruce Highway	50
motor vehicle. Checks revealed that his licence was suspended on that occasion as well.

Legislation has been prepared to allow the Court to impose
cumulative periods of disqualification; however, that is not

at Mount Larcom and they intercepted the appellant driving a appearing for him in the lower court said his instructions are that the appellant: 3 ORDER 60

"...had contracts to perform work in Central Queensland.	10
He had hired a driver. He had the driver driving him around up there. They had to be back in Brisbane by a deadline for a shopping centre. At his own expense he had flown the contractors up from Sydney. His driver informed him that he was tired and he had made the bad decision at that point of time of offering the driver some relief by driving for an hour while his hired driver had a sleep. At that point, of course, he has come to the attention of the police."
20

The traffic history of the appellant is as follows: on the
18th of January 2007 he was convicted of exceeding the speed
limit in the speed zone by more than 40 kilometres per hour.

On the 19th of September of 2006 he was fined the sum of $700

30

and lost eight demerit points.

On the 8th of February of 2007 the high speed suspension was
applied pursuant to Section 30A of the Transport Operation

(Road Use Management) Driver Licence Regulations. The

40

appellant appealed against his suspension on the 5th of March
of 2007, and on the 21st of April of 2007 it was enforced.

On the 3rd of April the appellant was convicted of exceeding the speed limits in a speed zone by more than 40 kilometres

50

per hour on the 30th of May of 2006. He was fined the sum of
$60 and lost eight demerit points.
On the 27th of April 2007 a demerit point suspension was 4 ORDER 60

1

applied to the appellant. On the 9th of May of 2007 the
appellant lodged an appeal against the high speed suspension

which was dismissed because he was out of time.

On the 1st of June the appellant was convicted of exceeding	10
100 kilometres per hour by at least 13 kilometres an hour but under 20 kilometres an hour on the 28th of May of 2007. He was fined $150 and lost three demerit points.
In a relatively short period it is quite significant driving	20
infringement. Having regard to the offences for which he was
committed, he is automatically required to be suspended from
holding or obtaining a licence for a period of six months.
The Magistrate decided that he would proceed under the
Penalties and Sentences Act which provides as follows,	30
Section 187:

"(1) If -

(a) an offender is convicted of an offence in

connection with or arising out of the driving of a motor

vehicle by the offender, and 40

(b) the court by or before which the offender is

convicted is satisfied, having regard to the nature of
the offence, or all of the circumstances in which it was
committed that the offender should in the interest of
justice be disqualified from holding or obtaining a
Queensland driver's licence, the court may, in addition
to any sentence that it may impose, order that the
offender is from the time of the conviction disqualified

absolutely or for such period as is ordered by the court	50
from holding or obtaining a Queensland driver's licence."

5 ORDER 60

Obviously, the factors to be taken into consideration are the

1

circumstances surrounding the driving itself, but also the

driver's traffic history.

As I have said, in a relatively short period he has

accumulated a significant traffic infringement history. It	10
would be appropriate, it seems to me, that in relation to the
first offence to proceed under the Transport Act and
disqualify him for a period of six months. However, in
relation to the second matter, of course, one has to take into
consideration that at that stage he had been disqualified,	20
full well knew that he had been disqualified and during that period decided that he would drive the motor vehicle.
In the circumstances, it is quite appropriate, it seems to me
to increase the period of disqualification in relation to that	30
matter and the period which was imposed by the Magistrate in
relation to that matter was nine months. However, that might seem a little excessive taking into consideration the efforts which the appellant had made by hiring a driver. In the
circumstances, he is disqualified in relation to the second	40
matter for a period of seven months.
Of course, it goes without saying further that those periods of disqualification are concurrent.
50
...
HIS HONOUR: The appellant is allowed his costs of the appeal.

6 ORDER 60

...

HIS HONOUR: The costs are fixed at $1800.

-----	10
20
30
40
50

7 ORDER 60