Ellison v Queensland Police Service
[2006] QDC 125
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Ellison v Queensland Police Service[2006] QDC 125
- Add to List
Ellison v Queensland Police Service[2006] QDC 125
Ellison v Queensland Police Service[2006] QDC 125
[2006] QDC 125
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 975 of 2006
PETER LAWRENCE ELLISON | Applicant |
and |
|
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE | Respondent |
BRISBANE
DATE 28/04/2006
ORDER
CATCHWORDS: | Removal of five year disqualification (forming part of a sentence) which still had five months to run under s 131(2C) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 - application based on need for transport to rehabilitation services for a supervening work injury - no opposition from Police Service |
HIS HONOUR: This is an application by Mr Ellison under section 131 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 for removal of a disqualification of five years from holding or obtaining a driver's licence included in a sentence by Judge Healy QC on the 24th of September 2001. The sentence was a severe one otherwise of three years' imprisonment, suspended after 12 months had been served, for an operational period of three years. That is unsurprising, given the grievous bodily harm caused to a person by Mr Ellison's driving, which came on top of a bad traffic history, at a time when his abilities were impaired by the ingestion of cannabis.
Although Mr Ellison's affidavit makes the point that a period of five years from the accident has elapsed, the Judge's intention was that there be a disqualification for a period of five years from the date of his order. That period has less than five months to run. The Court does not hear of any difficulty that Mr Ellison has caused the community during the operational period set by his Honour.
If there had been opposition supported by evidence from the respondent to the making of the order sought I might have had misgivings about it in deference to Judge Healy's approach. Mr Ellison is fortunate in encountering a sympathetic attitude from the respondent. Ms Clarke indicates that the respondent makes no submissions and will abide the order of the Court.
A licence is not required for work purposes, given that a lower back injury sustained at work and apparently the subject of a claim apparently precludes Mr Ellison from accepting employment, so that basis for enabling him to drive licensed does not exist. However, he requires the licence, on uncontested material, so that he can access various places where he engages in activities or receives treatment which, hopefully, will assist his rehabilitation.
In the circumstances the Court will make an order under section 131(2C) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 removing the disqualification ordered by Judge Healy QC on the 24th of September 2001 as from today.