Make A Booking Call Now

General Duty of Driver or Person in Charge of Motor Vehicle

Table of Contents

Ophelia Hollway

Author: Ophelia Hollway

Practice area: driving offences

Ophelia is a Senior Associate and LIV Accredited Criminal Law Specialist at Doogue + George, appearing regularly as a solicitor advocate across Victorian courts and having practised exclusively in criminal law since admission. Her depth of experience in this area means clients receive accurate, considered advice.

View full profile →

Ophelia authored this content and last revised it for accuracy on 6 August 2026.

What is the offence of General Duty of Driver or Person in Charge of Motor Vehicle?

This offence establishes the core statutory duties imposed on individuals who drive or are responsible for a motor vehicle in Victoria. It governs compliance with regulatory control measures designed to ensure safe, lawful, and accountable use of motor vehicles on public roads.

Key points

  • Legislative provision: Section 59 of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic).
  • Type of obligation: Observing mandatory duties linked to lawful roadside regulation.
  • Usual court level: Magistrates’ Court.

Maximum penalty: A fine of 120 penalty units ($25,092.00 as at 2026-2027) or imprisonment for 12 months.

Common issues raised: Lawfulness of the direction, existence of a reasonable excuse, clarity of police authority, and compliance with follow-up document requirements.

Have you been accused of General Duty of Driver or Person in Charge of Motor Vehicle?

Police Interview

If the police want to question you about an allegation of failing to fulfil duties as a driver or person in charge of vehicle, they will either telephone you and ask you to attend a police station or they will turn up at your home or workplace.

Depending on the circumstances of the allegations, police may conduct a formal or informal interview whereby they may simply ask you questions on the doorstep of your home rather than asking you to come to the station and formally recording the interview.

It is important to know that you can still take a moment to contact our office and obtain advice before speaking to police. We will help you to understand your rights and options when discussing driver duties with police.

Pleading Not Guilty

The laws that apply to a charge of failing to fulfil general duties of drivers can make defending a charge of this kind more complex. Whether you had no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the allegation or you made a mistake may not be a defence to the charge. We have experience in defending Road Safety Act allegations and can help you strategise the best possible defence in your case.

Pleading Guilty

Making the decision to plead guilty to a charge of failing to fulfil general duties of drivers or persons in charge of vehicles may, should not be made lightly. You must speak to one of our lawyers to receive advice on what the likely penalties are and how you can prepare so as to reduce.

Preparing for your plea is just as important as defending the case. A well-prepared plea can be the difference between a non-conviction or conviction outcome, the latter often having an impact on your everyday life. We will ensure we know everything about your personal history and the circumstances that lead to the offending to be able to tell the Court a story about you that will persuade them to impose the lowest possible penalty.

Sentencing

Sentencing in the higher courts of Victoria

Higher courts sentencing pie chart

Source: Sentencing Advisory Council of Victoria (SACStat), Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) s 59(1)(a) — 23 charges, higher courts, 1 July 2019 – 30 June 2024.

Outcome%
Imprisonment52.2%
Fine26.1%
Other21.7%

The data highlights a substantial likelihood of a custodial sentence at this level, typically reflecting more serious circumstances or aggravating features. The court will consider factors such as the manner of driving, any risk posed to the public, prior history and the surrounding context before determining penalty. Focused preparation and strong advocacy are critical where the prospect of imprisonment is significant.

Sentencing in the Magistrates’ Courts of Victoria

Magistrates court sentencing pie chart

Source: Sentencing Advisory Council of Victoria (SACStat), Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) s 59(2)(c) — 319 charges across 308 cases, Magistrates’ Court, 1 July 2020 – 30 June 2023.

Outcome%
Fine41.1%
Imprisonment32.3%
Community Correction Order14.7%
Adjourned Undertaking8.5%
Discharge/Dismissal2.5%
Other0.9%

These figures demonstrate that custody is a real risk, although financial penalties remain the most frequent outcome. Sentencing will depend on the seriousness of the conduct, any danger created and the offender’s prior record. Early legal advice can make a meaningful difference to the final result.

Examples of General Duty of Driver or Person in Charge of Motor Vehicle

  • A woman is pulled over by a Police Officer and asked to show her licence, she refuses to do so.
  • A man is driving a truck and refuses to have the load weighed when required to do so by the Police.

Defences

  • You have a reasonable excuse for the failure.
  • You did not have your licence at the time but provided it to the Police within 7 days.
  • The Police officer was not in uniform and you did not believe they were the Police.

There are other possible defences, depending on the circumstances surrounding the alleged offending. Each matter is unique and requires an individual approach and strategy.

Questions in cases like this

  • What did the Police ask you to do?
  • What did you refuse to do?
  • Is there a good reason as to why you refused?

Maximum penalty and court that deals with this charge

The maximum penalty for General Duty of Driver or Person in Charge of Motor Vehicle (s59 of the Road Safety Act 1986) is a fine of 120 penalty units ($25,092.00 as at 2026-2027) or a term of imprisonment for 12 months.

Charges that arise from the General Duty of Driver or Person in Charge of Motor Vehicle would be heard in the Magistrates’ Court.

Legislation

The section that covers this offence is section 59 of the Road Safety Act 1986.

What is the legal definition of General Duty of Driver or Person in Charge of Motor Vehicle?

This offence is applies to a person driving a motor vehicle, when a person fails to comply with a lawful request or direction to do one of the following: produce their licence upon request; produce log books for inspection; stop the motor vehicle; or permit motor vehicle to be weighed. Or a person provides a false name to the Police.

When driving what did you refuse to do?

Case Studies

FAQ about General Duty of Driver or Person in Charge of Motor Vehicle

What obligations does section 59 place on drivers?
Section 59 requires drivers and persons in charge of motor vehicles to comply with lawful directions connected to road regulation. These obligations support police and authorised officers in carrying out enforcement activities such as stopping vehicles, checking documentation, and regulating vehicle loads.
A breach can involve refusing to stop when directed, failing to produce a driver licence or required log books, refusing to permit a vehicle to be weighed, or giving a false name when details are lawfully required. Each form of conduct relates to non-compliance with an authorised request.
No. The offence applies broadly to any person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle. This includes commercial drivers, such as truck drivers, where obligations may involve additional requirements like producing log books or permitting vehicle weighing.
Where a driver does not have their licence at the time of the request, producing it to police within seven days is a relevant consideration. This issue can be central to determining whether the failure to produce the licence amounts to an offence.
Police identification becomes relevant where a driver claims they did not know the person giving the direction was a police officer. If the officer was not in uniform, the issue may arise whether it was reasonable for the driver to recognise the request as coming from police.
Key questions include what the police requested, what action was refused, and whether there was a reasonable explanation for that refusal. These matters go directly to whether the legal duties imposed by section 59 were breached.