Brooks v Commissioner of Police
[2009] QDC 256
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
- Brooks v Commissioner of Police[2009] QDC 256
- Add to List
Brooks v Commissioner of Police[2009] QDC 256
Brooks v Commissioner of Police[2009] QDC 256
[2009] QDC 256
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 1461 of 2009
JOHN FRANCIS BROOKS | Applicant |
and | |
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE | Respondent |
BRISBANE
DATE 29/06/2009
ORDER
CATCHWORDS: | Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, s 131(2), (2c) - absolute disqualification removed after more than 8 years (for 14 months of which applicant had been in custody) - applicant had good post-disqualification record but did not express remorse, disputing the sentencing judge's (and jury's presumed) view he had "used his vehicle as a weapon" - importance of reintegrating appellant in the community |
HIS HONOUR: It is curious how often things seem to come in threes. On the 19th of June there was an application similar to Mr Brooks' before me in Maroochydore. The reasons I gave are available in Kennedy -v- Commissioner of Police [2009] QDC 181. It is convenient to refer to those reasons and also to those which will shortly appear in [2009] QDC in the matter of Tabakovic decided last week.
These are all applications under section 131(2) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act seeking removal of disqualification from holding a driving licence. In Mr Kennedy's case, it was his second application; the first failed, being considered premature by Judge Robertson: see [2007] QDC 353. The possibility of deferring the date where the removal of a disqualification becomes effective is well established.
In Mr Brooks' case, the disqualification has been in effect for much longer than one usually encounters. It was imposed by Judge Boyce on the 22nd of June 2001. It's also unusual in being an absolute disqualification. It followed the conviction of Mr Brooks by a jury of dangerous driving. It's another unusual feature of today's application that although a woman was injured in the relevant event, she didn't suffer grievous bodily harm.
Mr Brooks has had an unfortunate traffic history and criminal history which is set out in the document he handed up today, as foreshadowed in his affidavit which deposes that he had had difficulty in obtaining a criminal history before. The reason for the absolute disqualification is summarised in Judge Boyce's view that Mr Brooks had used his vehicle as a weapon, deliberately ramming the woman's vehicle in a road-rage incident after, on the view his Honour took of the facts, there had been tailgating of her for a considerable distance.
On the woman's version, the essentials of which the jury presumably accepted, Mr Brooks brought his vehicle into contact with hers up to four times. His version was totally different, being one that she had deliberately sideswiped his vehicle, he suggests in an attempt to obtain an insurance benefit. Judge Boyce disbelieved Mr Brooks and so, presumably, did the jury. These matters are noted because he continues to adhere to his view of events.
He places before the Court assessments in the form of psychological reports prepared in connection with his incarceration under Judge Boyce's sentence which lasted for 14 months of actual custody. The head sentence was two years.
It would be wrong for the Court to insist on some acknowledgment of guilt or expression of remorse from an applicant in Mr Brooks' position, in my view. The helpful written submissions prepared by Ms Wainwright for the respondent refer to the relevant consideration of:
"The effect that long periods of disqualification may have upon the reintegration of the applicant in the community. See R -v- Shirley [1969] 1 WLR 1357 at 1358 as adopted by Williams J in Burt -v- Commissioner of Police (Queensland) [1990] 10 MVR 329."
The submission helpfully collects as other relevant considerations the character of the person disqualified, the person's conduct subsequent to the order and the nature of the offence, plus other circumstances of the case. As Ms Wainwright says, section 133(2C) doesn't create a right in an applicant to have an absolute disqualification removed. Understandably, in the circumstances, the respondent adopts a neutral attitude towards the application.
Mr Brooks' performance since the trial before Judge Boyce appears to have been exemplary. It's somewhat ironic that he's made his living driving, in particular earthmoving type equipment, having been employed recently in the construction of the water grid which the State Government established in south-east Queensland with a view to accommodating drought conditions.
There are considerations to do with employment which will make things much less difficult for Mr Brooks if he's able to drive on the roads as well to enable him to get himself to and from work. In addition to that, there are family considerations which in the interests of family members would point to the desirability of Mr Brooks obtaining again the privilege of being able to drive on our roads.
In addition to that, unfortunately, his medical condition has now deteriorated in a way that effectively precludes his using a bicycle for his transport requirements. This seems to have much to do with an accident long in the past in which he must have been badly injured. He has some difficulty now in walking any distance as well. There's medical support for Mr Brooks' contentions in this regard.
I've already referred to the quality of Mr Brooks' application and supporting affidavit, he being self-represented. He told me that a recently graduated law student who is now overseas assisted him. I pay a tribute to that person who has been astute to include in the material placed before the Court the adverse aspects as well as the sympathetic one.
The disqualification has now been operative for more than eight years and, for all that appears, has been respected by Mr Brooks. Ms Wainwright has been given leave to read and file "Fame and Character" reports of the 11th of June 2009 and 21st of June 2009 which have been obtained from the police stations at Caboolture and Woodford. Those don't contain anything adverse to Mr Brooks and tend to confirm the importance, if he's to take advantage of job opportunities, of his obtaining a licence again.
For the first 14 months when Mr Brooks was imprisoned, the disqualification had no impact on his life. Even setting aside that period, which ought to be taken into account in applications such as the present (for its lack of practical effect), the disqualification has been operative for close to seven years, which I think is long enough in the circumstances.
So I'll order that the absolute disqualification imposed in respect of the applicant in the District Court on the 26th of June 2001 be removed with immediate effect.
You'll probably be very careful to do the right thing on the road from now on, Mr Brooks.
APPLICANT: Thank you, your Honour. I thank you very much. You've been most considerate.
HIS HONOUR: Thanks, Ms Wainwright, too.
MS WAINWRIGHT: Thank you, your Honour.