The Court: Geelong Magistrates Court
The Lawyer: Ryan Robertson
The Charges:
The Allegations:
Our client was the sole carer of her elderly father, who had numerous medical conditions and mobility issues and was legally blind. Her licence was suspended due to demerit points, and she drove to work after cancelling a shift the day before to assist her sick father. The client’s father was the one requiring the use of the car, as the client herself was able to take public transport to work.
Whilst she was suspended, the client had difficulty taking her father to his necessary medical appointments, as they would need to use taxis or rely on the assistance of neighbours if the client was unable to make it. This created a financial burden and caused difficulties for the client regarding her work schedule.
At Court:
As the client’s main concern was her ability to assist her father, our main goals were to ensure that she, firstly, retained her licence and, secondly, retained her vehicle.
Submissions were made to the court regarding the client’s good driving history and limited prior criminal charges. She cooperated with Victoria Police and made full admissions that corresponded with the instructions given to our office. She had also entered an early plea at the first mention date, which has saved the court time and resources. The court understood the client’s situation and accepted that she had only driven on this one occasion during her suspension. As such, the court decided not to further suspend her licence but rather to hand down a $500 fine without a conviction.
As her licence was not suspended, we were able to make submissions against the impoundment of her vehicle.
Submissions were then made that the impoundment of the client’s vehicle would cause exceptional hardship not to her but to her father, whom she cares for. He was not present to make the application. However, letters from his doctor and other children were tendered to speak to his medical condition and the requirements of the client’s care.
These submissions pointed to the legislation, indicating that hardship does not have to be directly to the person who owns or operates the vehicle but to anyone substantially affected by its removal.
Submissions were then made to the client’s father’s lack of accessibility without this mode of transportation, which would be dire considering his medical needs. It was further expressed that the client having access to this vehicle would not threaten the safety and wellbeing of the public due to her generally consistent driving record and that restricting her access to the vehicle would not serve the public interest in preventing further offences as she was unlikely to return back to the court on further offending.
The Outcome:
Accordingly, the court found that impounding the client’s vehicle would cause exceptional hardship to the client’s father and rejected the prosecutor’s application for impoundment of the vehicle.
