Disclosure: This case study reflects actual results from our files, with the client’s name and some details omitted or altered to protect confidentiality. The charges and penalties imposed remain unchanged. Each case is unique, and outcomes may vary; this case study is shared for illustrative purposes only.
The Court: Frankston Magistrates Court
The Lawyer: Michael Brown
The Charges:
- Section 49(1)(b) Road Safety Act – Drive a motor vehicle while more than the prescribed concentration of alcohol (Alleged reading 0.155);
- Section 49(1)(f) Road Safety Act – Within 3 hours after driving a motor vehicle furnish a sample of breath and the indicted the concentration of alcohol after driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle. (Alleged Reading 0.155);
- Rule 20 – Road Safety Road Rules – Drive over the speed-limit. Speed Limit 70km/hr – Alleged Speed 105 kph;
- Rule 268(4A) – Road Safety Rules 2009 – Drive with a passenger in a part of the vehicle that was not a part designed primarily for the carriage of passengers; and
- Rule 61(1) – Road Safety Rules- Drive with more than one peer passenger.
Facts of the Case:
The client held a Victorian Probationary (P1) driver’s licence. At 3:30 am, the police intercepted the client’s car, which was travelling at 105 kilometres per hour (km/h) on Nepean Highway, where the speed limit was 70 km/h.
During the interception, it was observed that the client had three passengers in the vehicle. One of the passengers, a female, was sitting in the footwell between the legs of the front passenger.
A preliminary breath test was conducted, which confirmed that the client had alcohol in their system. As a result, the client was taken to Mornington Police Station for a formal breath test. The test revealed a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.155 grams of alcohol per 210 litres of breath.
When questioned by police, the client admitted to the offences and stated there was no justification for their conduct.
Drink Driving Charges Result: On the day of the case conference at Frankston Magistrates’ Court, it was agreed that the matter would proceed by way of a guilty plea to Charges 2–5, as Charge 1 was an alternative to Charge 2. The plea proceeded on this arrangement.
For Charge 2, His Honour imposed the mandatory minimum licence disqualification of 15 months. This disqualification was backdated to the date the section section 85 notice that had been issued to the client, which was six months earlier.
For Charge 3, His Honour cancelled the client’s licence for 12 months from the date of the plea. Magistrate-imposed disqualification or suspension periods always run concurrently with other Magistrate-imposed periods.
His Honour was informed of the additional VicRoads penalties associated with the charges. These penalties included a further four-month licence suspension due to the demerit points incurred for the offences. Unlike Court-imposed suspensions, VicRoads suspensions could not run concurrently with Court-imposed disqualifications. This distinction was a critical factor in His Honour’s consideration of whether to impose a period of disqualification exceeding the mandatory minimum. (Notably, the law changed in 2018, allowing Court and VicRoads penalties to run concurrently.)
Many lawyers overlooked the fact that certain offences heard in Court also attracted demerit points. Failing to raise this with the Magistrate could disadvantage clients and result in additional time off the road.
At Dribbin & Brown, we ensured that our lawyers were trained in these finer details. We believed every case deserved meticulous attention, especially driving matters. Any additional time our clients spent off the road often had significant financial and personal repercussions.
This was the client’s first court appearance for driving charges. The Magistrate sentenced the client to a $1,200 financial penalty without conviction. The client was ecstatic with the outcome and promptly left a glowing Google review for the criminal defence lawyer who represented them.
