Driving While Suspended – Application for Forfeiture
This is a case of Driving While Suspended involving an application for forfeiture.
Our client was charged with one count of Driving While Suspended for which he already has three priors plus an additional prior for speeding. The matter proceeded as a plea of guilty and the prosecution made application for forfeiture of our client’s car.
If the forfeiture were to be granted, the application would mean that our client had to surrender his car permanently. The car had already been impounded at the time of the offence and it had cost our client considerable money to get it back.
We acted on the client’s behalf at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.
On the plea, we were able to persuade the court that despite our client’s history, he should be dealt with by way of a fine rather than a more serious penalty such as a Community Corrections Order. Over a year had passed without him further offending and we relied on that, together with other submissions.
The most concerning aspect of the proceedings for our client was that the charge of Driving While Suspended involved an application for forfeiture. Because of the particular circumstances of the case, we were in a position to oppose the application. We relied on the exceptional hardship that would be caused to our client’s partner if the car were to be forfeited. The partner was a medical doctor who required the car for an upcoming rural placement and, without the vehicle, she would not be able to get to the hospital quickly in case of emergencies or when on call. Given other financial commitments, our client’s partner was not in a position to afford a new car before commencing her placement. We called evidence from the partner to support our submissions.
Ultimately the magistrate was persuaded by the evidence and our submissions as to the circumstances surrounding the charge of Driving While Suspended. The application for forfeiture was rejected. This was a great result not just for our client, but for his partner as well.
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 22/12/2017