Traffic Offences – Fine, Licence Cancelled

Our client was charged with drink driving and providing a false name to the Police. There were no aggravating features to the offending such as involvement in an accident, or having passengers in the car. However, the reading was high (.122) and our client had four prior convictions for drink driving. The most serious penalty he had received in the past was a fine.

The charges he faced were:

Our client was convicted and fined on the charge of provide false name. In regards to the drink driving charge, his licence was cancelled for the mandatory minimum period of 24 months. No fine was imposed in relation to this drink driving charge.

Given the high reading on this occasion and the prior convictions, a Community Corrections Order would have been within range. We had also prepared our client for the fact that the Magistrate may exceed the mandatory minimum licence loss period. In all the circumstances therefore, this was a very positive result.

We represented the client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.

In our plea in mitigation, we outlined the unique circumstances surrounding the offending and provided a detailed account of our client’s challenging circumstances. In our submissions to the Magistrate, we were able to rely on positive reference material prepared by family, friends and employers with our assistance. In particular, a detailed reference was provided by our client’s wife which spoke of our client’s commitment to his family and the time he devotes to caring for his disabled son. Given the loss of licence, our client relies on a combination of public transport and taxis to travel to and from work, and collect his children from school and day care. We highlighted the punitive effect of the loss of licence and the fact that our client ceased drinking altogether from the date of the offending.

Ultimately, the Magistrate was persuaded by our submissions and saw fit to impose a modest fine and to adhere to the minimum licence disqualification period.


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 25/02/2013