Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Grambower v Commissioner of Police[2021] QDC 265

Grambower v Commissioner of Police[2021] QDC 265

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Grambower v Commissioner of Police [2021] QDC 265

PARTIES:

HARLEY JAMES GRAMBOWER

(applicant)

 

v

 

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

(respondent)

FILE NO:

D157/21

PROCEEDING:

Application for removal of licence disqualification

DELIVERED EX-TEMPORE ON:

22 October 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

22 October 2021

JUDGE:

Cash QC DCJ

ORDER:

The driver’s licence disqualification imposed on 6 September 2018 is removed.

LEGISLATION:

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 131

APPEARANCES:

A Smith instructed by Smith Criminal Law for the applicant

R Fogarty instructed by Queensland Police Service Legal Unit for the respondent

Introduction

  1. [1]
    This is an application pursuant to section 131(10) and (11)(b) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld).[1] The applicant, Harley James Grambower, seeks the removal of a disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence that was ordered by me on 6 September 2018. For the reasons which follow I have decided that it is appropriate to order that the disqualifications be removed.

Background

  1. [2]
    On 6 September 2018 the applicant appeared before me in the District Court at Maroochydore. He pleaded guilty to several serious offences, the details of which are not necessary to recite. The offences occurred in late 2016 and early 2017, soon after the applicant had been released from prison under an earlier sentence. The applicant carried out a spree of offending. In late 2016 he stalked his landlord, who was trying to evict him and his then girlfriend. He robbed a service station while armed with a machete and attempted to rob another while armed with a rifle. He broke into businesses, causing substantial damage and stealing valuable items. Most seriously, when a police officer caught the applicant in the middle of such an offence one night in January 2017, he drove a stolen car at the police officer, striking him in the leg. He escaped but was finally arrested a few days later, but not without again attempting to escape from the police.
  2. [3]
    When the applicant was sentenced, he was 25 years old, and he had been 23 years old when he committed the offences. He had some previous convictions which were not substantial, but which had resulted in imprisonment. The applicant was addicted to methylamphetamine and allowed that to overtake his life.
  3. [4]
    The sentences I imposed resulted in a period of imprisonment of nine years. I ordered that the applicant be eligible for parole after serving three years and six months. Taking into account pre-sentence custody, the date fixed was 6 July 2020. I also ordered that the applicant be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for four years. That period is not due to expire until 6 September 2022, but section 131(10) permits an application to remove the disqualification after two years. Before an order removing disqualification is appropriate, the applicant must satisfy the Court, on the balance of probabilities, that having regard to his character, his conduct subsequent to the offending, the nature of the original offences and any other circumstances, that it is proper that he again be allowed the opportunity to obtain a driver’s licence.[2]

Circumstances of the applicant since being sentenced

  1. [5]
    The applicant is now 28 years old. He was released from custody on 30 July 2020 and will be subject to parole until early 2026. The applicant lives at Gympie with his partner. She is also on parole. In late 2018 she was sentenced to imprisonment for nine years for drug trafficking and other offences. Together they care for two young children and are expecting a third early next year. The applicant has work for a roofing company. He appears to be well regarded by his employer, who notes that the applicant’s inability to drive limits the work he can do and his prospects of advancement.
  2. [6]
    The applicant deposes that he has not breached parole since his release last year and has not used illegal drugs since he was imprisoned. He has completed a number of courses intended to address his substance abuse and has also completed the Queensland Traffic Offenders Program. In short, the applicant claims to have reformed himself.

The position of the respondent

  1. [7]
    The Police Commissioner has exercised her right of appearance pursuant to section 131(12). The respondent’s submissions helpfully summarise the applicant’s case. Less helpfully, the respondent submits that she neither supports nor opposes’ the application. That is a somewhat meaningless submission and can only be taken to indicate that the respondent does not point to any matter that might warrant refusal of the application.

Conclusion

  1. [8]
    The offences committed by the applicant were extremely serious. He was at the time of the offences a menace and it was appropriate that he be denied his driver’s licence for a time. But the unchallenged evidence shows that since then he has at least begun the path to rehabilitation. It is also to be noted that the inability to drive has a harsher impact on people who live in regional areas. To some extent at least, the absence of a licence is holding the applicant back, and his position will only be more difficult when his partner gives birth early next year. The disqualification period has a little less than a year to go,but when one takes into account the period of pre-sentence custody, the applicant has already been without a licence for more than four years.
  2. [9]
    In the circumstances, I am satisfied the applicant has demonstrated he should be allowed the opportunity to obtain a driver’s licence.
  3. [10]
    The order is that the disqualification imposed on 6 September 2018 is removed.

Footnotes

[1]  The application incorrectly cites the old provision, section 131(2C). Nothing turns on this.

[2] Tabakovic v Commissioner of Police [2009] QDC 191; Wyman v Commissioner of Police [2015] QDC 231; Slivo v Commissioner of Police [2016] QDC 46.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Grambower v Commissioner of Police

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Grambower v Commissioner of Police

  • MNC:

    [2021] QDC 265

  • Court:

    QDC

  • Judge(s):

    Cash QC DCJ

  • Date:

    22 Oct 2021

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Slivo v Commissioner of Police [2016] QDC 46
1 citation
Tabakovic v Commissioner of Police [2009] QDC 191
1 citation
Wyman v Commissioner of Police [2015] QDC 231
1 citation

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.