Careless Driving Dismissed Under Section 76 of the Sentencing Act
This is a case of Careless Driving dismissed under section 76 of the Sentencing Act.
Our client was charged with Careless Driving and Failing to Have Proper Control of a Vehicle after falling asleep behind the wheel at speed, veering across a number of lanes before colliding with the barricades in the median strip of the Hume Highway. The impact of the collision caused debris to scatter across the inbound and outbound lanes, causing significant damage to a number of other vehicles which had to be towed from the scene. The client’s vehicle suffered irreparable damage and was written off.
The client was a tradesman and losing his licence would mean losing his job. He was represented by Sophie Stafford at the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court.
We case conferenced the matter with the police who agreed to withdraw the charge of Failing to Have Proper Control of the Vehicle. Medical documentation was provided to the court to show that the client had immediately taken himself to his treating doctor for testing, to determine any possible medical causes for ‘blacking out’ whilst behind the wheel.
A number of character references were also provided to confirm the client’s good character. A letter from his employer was also tendered, confirming that our client stands to lose his job if he loses his license.
After hearing the submissions, the magistrate found the charge proven (Careless Driving) and then dismissed it under section 76 of the Sentencing Act. The court did not make any order against the client’s license, or impose any other penalty.
Sophie's attention to detail plays a big part in obtaining successful results for clients. She handles both summary and indictable charges at Melbourne and suburban courts.
Know more about Sophie's expertise by checking out her profile page here.
DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 21/04/2017