R v Keen[2006] QDC 326

[2006] QDC 326

DISTRICT COURT

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 275 of 2002

SOUTHPORT

DATE 31/08/2006

ORDER

HIS HONOUR:  This is Mr Keen's application for the removal of a disqualification from holding a driving licence under section 131 subsection (2) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995.

The disqualification was imposed by Judge Botting in Maryborough on the 12th of November 2002.  Although the embarrassingly large number of offences for which sentence was imposed included one of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, which the Judge said was serious, and might have attracted a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment - he imposed one of only 12 - the five-year disqualification, which is the subject of this application, was attached in specific terms to offences of unlawful use of motor vehicles.

The matter is a little bit unusual, therefore, in that it is not the capacity of Mr Keen to drive which underlies the disqualification, but offending under the ordinary criminal law.  It has to be acknowledged that Mr Keen's offences were very costly to some of his fellow citizens.

The application was filed in Maryborough on the 9th of June  2006, but it has been transferred to this Court.  That suits the convenience of Mr Keen, who resides in New South Wales.  At the time of the application, he had not been able to find employment.  The application was accompanied by a plea from an employment adviser with Work Directions, Coffs Harbour, asking the Maryborough Court to consider reinstating the licence.  It expressed a good deal of confidence in Mr Keen, and his ability to perform well in employment, if only he could get it. 

In the ordinary way, a person's ability to drive is likely to be an important factor in gaining employment.  The favourable circumstances Mr Keen can point to since his day in court in Maryborough include establishment in New South Wales of an apparently stable relationship with a loyal and supportive partner who has driven him to Court today, and, it is pleasing to note, employment gained within the last two or three months. 

There is a very favourable reference from Mr Chambers, representing the employer.  Exhibit 1.  And another in Exhibit 2 from an associate of Mr Keen's in Alcoholics Anonymous, which speaks highly of him.  The author purports to be able to "smell from a country mile" any insincerity and the like.  Mr Keen has to confess to one lapse by way of consumption of liquor, which is the only blemish in his good record on parole.  The parole has been transferred to New South Wales. 

Mr Kelly, for the respondent, has been in contact with the supervisor there and is satisfied that matters are proceeding well.  He takes a sympathetic attitude to the application, but asks the Court to defer removal of the suspension until the end of the parole period, which will happen on the 21st of February 2007.  That is a considerable indulgence to Mr Keen who would otherwise be without a licence until November next year.  He is anxious, as anyone would be, I suppose, to get a licence sooner rather than later.  He has already served 15 months or so in the community without the ability to drive legally.  It is not suggested he has been driving illicitly.  It is temporising, I suppose, but my decision is to come down somewhere between what I infer Mr Keen would like, and Mr Kelly's suggestion. 

The disqualification which Judge Botting ordered was imposed deliberately, and for a good reason.  It was seen as an appropriate element of punishment for serious offending.  It should not be thought that applications of the present kind are guaranteed pretty well automatic success.  I think today the Court owes it to the community to acknowledge that Judge Botting's sentence ought to be taken seriously.  On the other hand, most would think it fitting to acknowledge, too, the steps which Mr Keen has taken since his release from prison, which probably owe much to his reflection on his situation while he was in prison.

Just as Mr Kelly was able to identify a sensible basis for his suggestion as to what the Court should do, I think the Court today can do the same in the course of extending a more generous indulgence by effectively reducing the five-year disqualification to four years.  That would mean Mr Keen had for about a year and a-half been without the ability to drive legally, which, given the nature of our society, is very important to most of us.

I will order that the disqualification imposed in the District Court at Maryborough on the 12th of November 2002 be removed as from the 12th of November 2006.