Zucco v Registrar of Motor Vehicles - [2000] TASSC 170

[2000] TASSC 170

CITATION: Zucco v Registrar of Motor Vehicles [2000] TASSC 170

PARTIES: ZUCCO, Marti

v
REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 104/2000
DELIVERED ON:  7 December 2000
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  4 December 2000
JUDGMENT OF:  Cox CJ

CATCHWORDS:

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Applicant:  In person
           Respondent:  K Brown
Solicitors:
           Applicant:  In person
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2000] TASSC 170
Number of paragraphs: 8

Serial No 170/2000
File No LCA 104/2000

MARTI ZUCCO v REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COX CJ

7 December 2000

This is a notice to review the refusal of a magistrate to grant a Restricted Driver Licence pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999, the applicant having been disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle for six months in consequence of the accumulation of 12 demerit points within a three year period.

The applicant sought authorisation to drive in the morning between his home at Geilston Bay to a business conducted by him at Main Road, Glenorchy and then to a shop at Claremont, at each of which premises he conducted a TAB business, and to return to his home in the evening on week days other than Tuesdays, which he seems to have taken as a day of leave. Similar authorisation at different times was sought for Saturday and Sunday each week. In addition, because the applicant is an alderman of the City of Hobart, he sought a licence which would permit him to drive between his places of business and home via the offices of the Hobart City Council on those days when he was required to attend meetings at the Town Hall. It appears there are three such meetings each fortnight.

He claimed that the licence disqualification was imposing, and would impose, severe and unusual hardship upon him because his home, accessible by a single lane dirt road, was situated about 1.5 kilometres from the nearest bus stop and because, although it would be possible to travel by public transport from Geilston Bay to Glenorchy in the mornings of week days, the last bus for the return journey left too early for him to utilise it. Furthermore, there was no practicable connecting bus from Glenorchy to Claremont. On the weekends, he claimed that the bus times were similarly impracticable. The cost of regularly travelling by taxi between all four locations was in the order of $450 per week. The Glenorchy premises were manned by a full time employee, but the applicant claimed he needed to visit them each day in order to "pick up the newspapers, prepare the morning for the staff, make sure the previous day's balancing has occurred, do the banking … on a Monday and a Thursday of each week". Challenged as to why the employee could not conduct these duties, he agreed that the employee could do so:

"… but ultimately I am responsible for everything that…

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 Zucco v Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Details

AGLC: Zucco v Registrar of Motor Vehicles [2000] TASSC 170
Case: [2000] TASSC 170
Decision Date: 7 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Marti Zucco sought to appeal against a decision by a magistrate to refuse his application for a Restricted Driver Licence under the Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999. Zucco had accumulated 12 demerit points within a three-year period, resulting in a six-month disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence. Zucco argued that the disqualification imposed severe and unusual hardship on him, necessitating the grant of a Restricted Driver Licence. He proposed specific driving hours for his business operations and council duties, but the magistrate found that the available public transport options and occasional taxi use were not beyond Zucco's reach. The magistrate concluded that Zucco had not demonstrated severe and unusual hardship sufficient to warrant a Restricted Driver Licence.

The court examined the legal principles governing the granting of a Restricted Driver Licence in cases of hardship and public interest. It was established that Zucco bore the burden of proving that the disqualification imposed severe and unusual hardship. The court found that while the situation was inconvenient and costly, it did not rise to the level of severe and unusual hardship, especially given the potential for Zucco to adjust his work schedule and the availability of public transport and taxi services. Additionally, the court considered whether issuing a Restricted Driver Licence would be contrary to the public interest, noting Zucco's history of multiple disqualifications and numerous speeding offences. The court upheld the magistrate's decision, finding that the granting of a Restricted Driver Licence would undermine the deterrent effect of the disqualification.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania dismissed Zucco's appeal, affirming the magistrate's decision. The court held that Zucco had not established the required level of hardship and that issuing a Restricted Driver Licence would be contrary to the public interest, given Zucco's persistent offending history. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the refusal to grant a Restricted Driver Licence was upheld.

Orders