Traffic Offences – Fine, No Order Against Licence

Our client was charged with dangerous driving, careless driving, improper use of motor vehicle, and make unnecessary noise and smoke. He was alleged to have used his motorcycle so as to cause it to fish-tail down a laneway. Our client ceased all activity once the police arrived at the scene and he was cooperative.

Our client had no prior court appearances (criminal or traffic). He needed to keep his license to maintain his employment, and to avoid burdening his wife (who had the full-time care of their baby) with the task of providing transport for him.

Shaun Pascoe represented our client at the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court.

The offence of dangerous driving carries a minimum maximum of 6 months imprisonment. This offence is considered to be one of the most serious in the Road Safety Act. It was our view that the evidence contained in the police brief of evidence did not establish the charge of dangerous driving. Discussions at case conference with the prosecution resulted in the charges of dangerous driving, careless driving, and make unnecessary noise and smoke being withdrawn.

The case then resolved on the basis of a guilty plea to the charge of improper use of motor vehicle. Because of our client’s previous good character and driving history, the Magistrate was persuaded not to interfere with our client’s drivers license. This was significant, as our client would have struggled to maintain his employment if the Court has ordered license suspension.

Our client was issued a fine.


Shaun PascoeShaun Pascoe

Shaun is an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist and a partner of the firm. Shaun runs the Heidelberg branch of Doogue + George.

He is an experienced criminal law solicitor and works hard to achieve the best possible outcomes for his clients. Shaun handles indictable and summary criminal offences and is an expert at criminal defence for both contested and non-contested cases.

Visit Shaun's profile to read more about his background and experience.

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