','

' ); } ?>

Exceed PCA – Minimum Licence Cancellation

This is a case study on charges of Exceed PCA and State False Name and Address resulting in a financial penalty and a licence cancellation for the mandatory minimum period.
Our client was charged with Exceed PCA 49(1)(b) and 49(1)(f) after having been found with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.122. Police alleged that he also provided a false name upon interview and so was charged with State False Name and Address. Our client has already been charged and convicted four times in the past for drink driving offences and, given this history and the recent high BAC, a Community Corrections Order (CCO) was a likely penalty.
 
We acted on the client’s behalf at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.

We made submissions to the court that detailed the challenging circumstances our client was in at the time of the offending. Several character references were provided by employers, friends, and family that showed our client to be a responsible man who was very devoted to his family, particularly to his disabled son. The offending was clearly out of character. Our client was deeply remorseful and has in fact abstained from drinking altogether ever since the incident. We further emphasised the punitive effect of a loss of licence. Our client would have to depend on a combination of public transport and taxis for his employment and for collecting his children from their schools.
 
Ultimately, our client was fined only for the charge of State False Name and Address. For the Exceed PCA charges, the magistrate imposed a licence cancellation for the mandatory minimum period of 24 months. This was a good outcome as the magistrate did not further exceed the mandatory minimum period and our client was able to avoid the likely penalty of CCO.
 

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 20/03/2020