Case Study Category: Driving Offences

Careless Driving Charges Not Guilty

Careless Driving Charges – Withdrawn Location: Moorabbin Magistrates’ Court Charge: Section 65, Road Safety Act 1986 – Careless Driving Facts: Our client was driving in an area where street lighting was poor, it was night time and raining heavily. The car travelling in front of

Impoundment Exceptional Hardship

Impoundment and Exceptional Hardship Case Study Location: Geelong Magistrates Court Charges: The client had been charged with driving whilst disqualified under s 30 of the Road Safety Act. As she had a previous charge of driving whilst disqualified, Victoria Police had brought an application for

Dangerous Driving and the Defence of Sudden or Extraordinary Emergency – Melbourne Magistrates’ Court

Dangerous Driving and the Defence of Sudden or Extraordinary Emergency Melbourne Magistrates’ Court Charges: The client had been charged with dangerous driving under s 64 of the Road Safety Act, as well as a charge of speeding under rule 20 of the Road Rules. She

Drink Driving Charges | Without Conviction

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

Driving Suspended | Breach Interlock | Appeal to County Court

The Court: County Court of Victoria The Lawyer: David Dribbin The Charges: Driving Whilst Suspended Breaching an Interlock Condition Exceeding the Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol The Allegations: The client had two driving matters, which occurred on separate occasions, initially listed on separate days at the

Driving Offences – Driving Whilst Suspended

that we could successfully defend the matter on the basis that the client had made an honest and reasonable mistake as to the status of her licence

Drink & Drug Driving Charges

Case Study- Drink Driving and Drug Driving Criminal Defence Lawyer Nancy Grunwald Charges: 1. Careless driving, Road Safety Act 1986 s. 65 2. Drink Driving, Road Safety Act 1986 s. 49(1)(b) 3. Drug Driving, Road Safety Act 1986 s. 49 (1) (bb) Facts of the

Dangerous Driving

As the light went green the client turned right and accelerated losing traction, causing smoke to emit from the wheels and causing the back of his ute to swing back and forth albeit mildly.

Application for rehearing

Application for rehearing at Court Charges Evade Police; Careless Driving; Loss of Traction. Ringwood Magistrates’ Court. Facts Client received a summons to go to Court in relation the above charges. The client had initially seen another lawyer who wasn’t sure how to best approach the case

Driving Offences – Careless Driving

The police charged him with careless driving.

Driving Whilst Suspended – Frankston

Charges Driving Whilst Suspended section 30(1) of the Road Safety Act. Listed at the Frankston Magistrates Court. Facts The client was an aged care worker, who was required to drive as part of her job. The client was very committed to her job but unfortunately

Serious Driving Charges | Appeal to County Court | Avoided Gaol

The Court: County Court of Victoria The Lawyer: Ashleigh Wallace The Charges: Reckless Conduct Endangering Life Dangerous Driving Speeding Refuse Breath Test Fail to Stop when Directed by Police. The Allegations: The client was charged with 28 offences relating to a police pursuit from Croydon

Licence Restoration

Charges Original Drink Driving charges resulted in an application before the Magistrates’ Court to become re-licenced. Sunshine Magistrates’ Court. Facts The client had a considerable criminal history, including drink driving, with two high blood alcohol readings in the late 1990s. The client then had a further

Reckless Conduct Endanger Serious Injury

Reckless Conduct Endanger Serious Injury Charges Conduct Endangering Life; Conduct Endangering Serious Injury; Dangerous Driving (for more info on these charges click here). Frankston Magistrates’ Court. Facts The client was travelling in the back seat of a car in which the front passenger had taken