Driving Unregistered and Uninsured in SA: Fines, Defences and Injury Claims
Driving unregistered and uninsured in South Australia
Driving an unregistered motor vehicle on a road carries a maximum fine of $7,500, and driving one with no compulsory third party insurance a maximum of $10,000, under sections 9 and 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Neither offence carries imprisonment or demerit points. A court can still record a conviction, and if someone is hurt, the driver of an uninsured vehicle can be made to repay the compensation. Talon Legal defends these charges in Magistrates Courts across South Australia. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021.
Driving unregistered and uninsured key facts
| Issue | Position in South Australia |
|---|---|
| Governing law | Sections 9 and 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA), current version as at 7 November 2026. |
| The offences | Driving an unregistered or uninsured motor vehicle, or causing one to stand, on a road (sections 9(1), 102(1)); the owner's offences (sections 9(3), 102(2)). |
| Maximum penalty | A fine of $7,500 (unregistered) or $10,000 (uninsured). No imprisonment. |
| Expiation fees | $502 for each section 9 offence and $927 for each section 102 offence, from 1 July 2026 (Motor Vehicles Regulations 2025, Schedule 5). |
| Victims of crime levy | $108 for a summary offence expiated without an enforcement determination, and $287 in any other case, for example a conviction, from 1 July 2026. |
| Demerit points | None prescribed for either offence (Motor Vehicles Regulations 2025, Schedule 4). |
| Licence | No mandatory disqualification. A court may disqualify under section 168 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA). |
| CTP after registration lapses | The policy stays in force for the registration period and a further 30-day period of grace (section 99A(8)(a)). |
| Liability | Strict liability, with statutory defences for drivers and owners. Honest and reasonable mistake is not a defence on its own. |
| Injury | A person injured by an uninsured vehicle may sue the nominal defendant, which may then recover from the driver (section 116). |
| First step | Same-day free 30-minute consultation. Call (08) 7094 2021. |
Charged with driving unregistered or uninsured? What sections 9 and 102 cover
Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) makes it an offence to drive an unregistered motor vehicle on a road, and section 102 makes it an offence to drive one with no compulsory third party (CTP) insurance policy in force. Owners commit their own offences when the vehicle is driven or left on a road. This guide sets out driving unregistered SA law: the driver and owner offences, fines and expiation fees, the 30-day CTP grace period, the defences, how courts deal with the charges, and what happens if someone is injured. It states the law current to 7 November 2026, with fees and levies as in force from 1 July 2026.
Most cases start with an expiation notice, and paying it means no conviction. Driving without a licence is a separate offence, covered on our driving unlicensed page. The options on any expiation notice are set out in our guide to contesting a speeding or camera fine.
Free Consultation. The choice between paying the notice and going to court is best made before the payment date. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021.
On this page
- What are the offences of driving unregistered and uninsured?
- What is the fine for driving unregistered in SA?
- Is a car still insured after its registration expires?
- Is not knowing the registration had lapsed a defence?
- When can an unregistered vehicle be driven lawfully?
- Do mini bikes, quad bikes and e-bikes need registration?
- What happens with an expiation notice or a camera detection?
- Will I get a conviction or lose my licence?
- What happens if someone is injured by an uninsured vehicle?
- How similar cases tend to play out
- How we defend a driving unregistered or uninsured charge
- Driving unregistered and uninsured case law
- Frequently asked questions
What are the offences of driving unregistered and uninsured?
There are four: two for the person who drives the vehicle or causes it to stand on a road, and two for the owner.
- Section 9(1): a person must not drive an unregistered motor vehicle, or cause one to stand, on a road.
- Section 9(3): if an unregistered motor vehicle is driven or found standing on a road, the owner is guilty of an offence.
- Section 102(1): a person must not drive an uninsured motor vehicle, or cause one to stand, on a road.
- Section 102(2): if an uninsured motor vehicle is driven or found standing on a road, the owner is guilty of an offence.
An unregistered motor vehicle is one without registration in force under the Act (section 9(7)). An insured motor vehicle is one with a Part 4 policy of insurance in force (section 99(1)), so an uninsured vehicle has no CTP policy in force. “Owner” includes the last registered owner and operator, but not a person who hires the vehicle (sections 9(7), 102(7)).
The same principles apply to causing a vehicle to stand on a road as to driving it (Bilaczenko v Police [2017] SASC 86 at [21] to [27]). A person who causes or permits another person to contravene the Act is also guilty of an offence, with the same penalty (section 143(1)).
Whether a person was driving can be in issue. In Harvey v Police [2009] SASC 302, a passenger who reached across and turned the key, making a parked car lurch, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt to be the driver, and findings of guilt on driving offences, including driving unregistered and uninsured, were set aside ([22] to [32]).
What is the fine for driving unregistered in SA?
Up to $7,500 in court, or an expiation fee of $502. For driving uninsured, the figures are $10,000 and $927.
| Offence | Section | Maximum court fine | Expiation fee from 1 July 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Driving an unregistered motor vehicle, or causing one to stand, on a road | 9(1) | $7,500 | $502 |
| Owner of an unregistered motor vehicle driven or found standing on a road | 9(3) | $7,500 | $502 |
| Driving an uninsured motor vehicle, or causing one to stand, on a road | 102(1) | $10,000 | $927 |
| Owner of an uninsured motor vehicle driven or found standing on a road | 102(2) | $10,000 | $927 |
The expiation fees are in Schedule 5 of the Motor Vehicles Regulations 2025. The victims of crime levy is separate. For a summary offence it is $108 where the offence is expiated without an enforcement determination, and $287 in any other case, for example on conviction (Victims of Crime (Fund and Levy) Regulations 2018, Schedule 1 clause 1(a)). These fees and levies are those in force from 1 July 2026. Older judgments mention lower fines and fees that are no longer current.
Neither section provides for imprisonment, a mandatory licence disqualification, or a higher maximum for a second or later offence. In R v Knowles [2007] SASC 185, the Court of Criminal Appeal treated the unregistered and uninsured counts as offences punishable only by fine, which could not be included in a single sentence of imprisonment with the other offences ([25] to [26]).
Schedule 4 of the Motor Vehicles Regulations 2025 prescribes no demerit points for either offence.
Is a car still insured after its registration expires?
For 30 days, yes. CTP insurance comes with registration. The premium is paid when registration is applied for (section 99A(1)), and the policy stays in force for the whole registration period and a further period of grace of 30 days (section 99A(8)(a)).
In practice, once registration lapses the vehicle is unregistered straight away, but on the words of section 99A(8)(a) it stays insured for those 30 days. After that it is both unregistered and uninsured. In Singh v Police [2013] SASC 155, a car whose registration had expired about five weeks earlier was “therefore also uninsured” ([18]).
Paying late does not repair the gap. Later payment of the registration fee and insurance premium, even backdated to the expiry date, cannot make the vehicle registered and insured at the earlier time (Bilaczenko v Police [2017] SASC 86 at [27]).
Is not knowing the registration had lapsed a defence?
Not on its own. Both offences are strict liability, so no intention or knowledge needs to be proved, and a defence of honest and reasonable mistake is not available (Singh at [20] to [24]; Bilaczenko v Police [2017] SASC 86 at [21]). In Bilaczenko, Stanley J quoted the Full Court’s statement that Parliament “has made detailed provision about the available defences and has thereby covered the field” ([24]).
The end of registration labels made no difference. In McFarlane v Police [2014] SASC 55, an owner argued that their abolition changed the position, and the argument failed: the offences remain strict liability ([20] to [23]).
What the Act provides instead are specific defences, which the defendant must prove.
| Who | Defence | Section |
|---|---|---|
| Driver | Driving in prescribed circumstances without knowing the vehicle was unregistered or uninsured: as a person who is not an owner or the registered operator, required by their employer to drive it in the course of employment, or in circumstances declared by the regulations. Provable by statutory declaration to the Commissioner of Police | 9(1a), (1b), (6b); 102(1a), (1b), (3d) |
| Driver | Not a registered owner or the registered operator, and did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the vehicle was unregistered or uninsured | 9(1c); 102(1c) |
| Driver or owner | The vehicle was driven or left standing in circumstances in which the Act permits it | 9(4); 102(3) |
| Owner | The owner did not drive it or leave it standing, and had taken reasonable steps to make anyone lawfully entitled to use it aware that it was unregistered or uninsured | 9(4a); 102(3aa) |
| Owner | Because of an unlawful act, the vehicle was not in the owner's possession or control at the time | 9(5); 102(3a) |
| Last registered owner or operator | The defendant was not the owner or operator at the time of the offence | 9(6); 102(3b) |
The employer defence is narrow. In Bilaczenko v Police [2017] SASC 86, it did not apply to an owner using his own car ([24] to [25]). On the retrial, Bilaczenko v Police [2018] SASC 117 held that honest and reasonable mistake is not available unless the preconditions in section 9(1a) or 102(1a) are made out, and that there was no factual basis for those defences ([25] to [26]).
Singh was decided on an earlier version of section 9. The former section 9(2) defence it considered ([21]) was repealed, and section 9(1c) substituted, from 1 November 2017.
When can an unregistered vehicle be driven lawfully?
When the Act permits it. It is a defence to prove that the vehicle was driven or left standing in circumstances in which the Act permits a vehicle without registration, or an uninsured vehicle, to be driven on a road (sections 9(4), 102(3)). These include:
- a permit under section 16: while it is in force, the vehicle is taken to be duly registered, and a CTP policy is in force for it (section 16(4), (5));
- trade plates under section 10, used in conformity with the trade plate provisions, with CTP cover for a vehicle driven in pursuance of the trade plates (section 99A(19));
- the exemptions in section 12B.
Trade plates must be used for a permitted purpose. In Cavuoto v Police [2010] SASC 343, a trader drove an unregistered vehicle with trade plates inside it to do a business quotation. The exemption applies only if the vehicle bears trade plates and is driven in conformity with the trade plate provisions ([19]), so he was guilty under sections 9 and 102 ([26]), and charging those offences was not an abuse of process ([25]).
Section 102 does not apply to a vehicle registered, or permitted to be driven, in a proclaimed State or Territory where a complying policy insures the owner and driver against liability for death or bodily injury arising from its use in South Australia (section 102(4) to (6)).
General defences in section 143B also apply: conduct authorised or excused by law, done in compliance with a direction from an authorised officer or police officer, or done in response to an emergency (section 143B(1)). The emergency defence needs a reasonable belief that the emergency existed, that committing the offence was the only reasonable way to deal with it, and that the conduct was a reasonable response (section 143B(2)). None applied in Singh ([23]).
Do mini bikes, quad bikes and e-bikes need registration?
Small and novelty vehicles are not automatically exempt. In Police v Hallett [2010] SASC 256, Gray J expressed the view, on a point the appeal did not need to decide, that a mini-motorcycle is a motor vehicle not exempt from registration, and that one which cannot be registered cannot lawfully be ridden on a road ([79] to [81]). That view was expressed on the definitions as they stood in 2010.
In Frick v Police [2011] SASC 17, a learner rode a four-wheeled miniature bike a short distance on the street to test it, believing it did not need registration, and pleaded guilty to driving it unregistered and uninsured. On appeal, the convictions on those counts were quashed and none recorded ([16] to [18]).
The definition of “motor vehicle” in section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act changed in 2024 and 2025. Whether a particular e-bike, e-scooter or similar device needs registration and CTP depends on the current definitions and regulations and on the device itself, and needs advice on the facts.
What happens with an expiation notice or a camera detection?
Most cases are dealt with by expiation notice. The notice must specify that the fee is to be paid within 28 days unless an arrangement is made (Expiation of Offences Act 1996 section 6(1)(c)). The options are:
- pay the fee: expiation bars a prosecution for the offence (section 15(1)), is not an admission of guilt, and cannot be referred to in a report to a sentencing court (section 15(4));
- apply to the issuing authority for a review on the ground that the offence is trifling; if satisfied that it is, the authority must withdraw the notice (section 8A(1), (5));
- elect to be prosecuted, in which case the notice is taken to have been withdrawn and the matter goes to court (section 8(1), (3)).
Electing has consequences. In Police v Kostoff [2014] SASC 130, an owner elected to be prosecuted so he could explain himself, not knowing that had he simply paid, “there could never have been a question of a conviction being recorded against him” ([2] to [4]).
Camera detections
Schedule 1 of the Motor Vehicles Act applies where evidence of a section 9 or 102 offence comes from a photographic detection device (sections 9(6a), 102(3c)). The expiation notice, reminder or summons must come with a notice about viewing the photographs (Schedule 1 clause 3).
Where registration has expired and a person is given an expiation notice for a camera-detected registration offence, that offence subsumes the person’s other camera-detected registration offences involving the vehicle within 14 days (clause 2(1)), but not those committed after the person is charged or given an expiation notice in that time (clause 2(2)). The rule does not help a person who, since the vehicle was last registered, has been charged or given a notice for a registration offence from a different incident involving it.
Statutory declarations
Form 7 in Schedule 1 of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 2014 says the Commissioner of Police will consider exculpatory evidence verified by statutory declaration on whether to withdraw the expiation notice, reminder or information. The declaration must be given before the due date for payment or, if a summons was enclosed, within 21 days after it was issued. The form gives examples of the owner’s reasonable steps defence and the defence for a driver who is not an owner or the registered operator (sections 9(4a), 9(1c), 102(3aa)).
Will I get a conviction or lose my licence?
Not necessarily. If the matter goes to court, the court must fix a fair penalty for the particular case, and it can decline to record a conviction.
The fine is set on the facts. In Kostoff, the magistrate erred in treating the expiation fee as the starting point and a conviction as usual. A court’s role is to impose a fair penalty for the circumstances, which may be well below the expiation fee ([8] to [12]). In Singh, the fine imposed was below the amount of the expiation notice ([34]).
Under section 24 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA), a court imposing a fine or community service may do so without recording a conviction if the defendant is unlikely to commit such an offence again and good reason exists, having regard to the defendant’s character, antecedents, age, or physical or mental condition, the offence being trifling, or other extenuating circumstances.
The decisions below applied section 16 of the repealed Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988. Courts have found good reason for inadvertent lapses by people of good character. In Brookes v Police [2014] SASC 22, a 58-year-old with no record forgot, while unwell, to renew her registration and so her CTP. The first limb of the test was “easily satisfied” ([22]), the approach to careless driving did not necessarily apply to an inadvertent failure to renew ([24]), and the convictions were set aside ([29] to [31]). No convictions were recorded in Kostoff ([34]) or Singh ([43] to [45]).
Other decisions say the power should be used sparingly for regulatory offences. In Brown v Police [2009] SASC 45, convictions were upheld for a driver who said poor mental health caused him to overlook the registration, and Nyland J said the discretion “should be used sparingly” ([13]). In Frick, the same view was expressed for social and regulatory offences ([16]), but the convictions were still quashed.
Neither section provides for a licence disqualification. Under section 168(1)(b) and (c) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA), a court that convicts a person of an offence in which a motor vehicle was used, or which the use of a motor vehicle facilitated, may order a disqualification. In Singh, the Chief Justice said it was difficult to see any justification for a disqualification at all in that case, though the power might be justified in an egregious case ([35]). In Draper v Police [2009] SASC 264, a 2-day disqualification for towing a trailer whose registration had lapsed was set aside, and it was inappropriate to use section 168 where Parliament had chosen not to provide one ([21] to [22]). Section 102 once carried its own power to disqualify, and Singh records its removal by legislation introduced in 2008 ([35]).
A repeat offence can also cost the use of the car. An offence against section 9 or 102, other than a first offence against either section, is a prescribed offence for vehicle clamping and impounding (regulation 5(f) of the Criminal Law (Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) Regulations 2022). Once a person is to be or has been reported for such an offence, or has been charged with or arrested for it, police can clamp or impound the vehicle used, or a vehicle the person is a registered owner of, for 28 days. The power does not apply where an expiation notice is given (sections 5 and 6 of the Criminal Law (Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) Act 2007 (SA)).
What happens if someone is injured by an uninsured vehicle?
The injured person can sue the nominal defendant, and the nominal defendant can then seek to recover from the driver.
A person claiming damages for death or bodily injury caused by or arising out of the use of an uninsured motor vehicle on a road may sue the nominal defendant (section 116(2)). The amount is what could have been recovered had the vehicle been insured, and no action may be brought against the person who would have been insured (section 116(3)). Written notice must be given to the nominal defendant as soon as reasonably practicable, and a claim may be dismissed for prejudice (section 116(4), (5)).
The nominal defendant can then turn to the driver:
- it may recover the sum paid, with costs, from a driver wholly or partly liable who drove intending, or reckless as to, death, injury or damage, who was so much under the influence of liquor or a drug as to be incapable of effective control, or who had a blood alcohol concentration of .1 or more (section 116(7));
- where the driver was found guilty of an offence against section 43 of the Road Traffic Act, it may recover the sum or a just and reasonable part of it (section 116(7aa), (7ab));
- in any other case, it may recover from a driver wholly or partly liable the sum, or such part as the court thinks just and reasonable in the circumstances, with costs (section 116(7b)).
In fixing a just and reasonable amount, the court considers the person’s contribution and other relevant matters (section 116(7e)). A driver sued under section 116(7b) has a defence if the vehicle was used by or with the owner’s consent and the driver did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that it was uninsured (section 116(7c)). The defence is not available if the driver was not duly licensed, if the vehicle was overloaded or in an unsafe, unroadworthy or damaged condition, or if the driver committed an offence against section 43 of the Road Traffic Act (section 116(7d)).
If the vehicle was still insured, for example within the 30-day grace period, the owner, the person in charge and the driver must each give the insurer written notice of an accident causing death or bodily injury. Failing to do so is an offence with a maximum of $1,250 or 3 months imprisonment, and there is a duty to cooperate with the insurer on a claim (section 124).
How similar cases tend to play out
Three illustrations of how sections 9, 102 and 116 apply on ordinary facts. They are not predictions. The result depends on the evidence, the person’s history and the court.
Lower range. A driver forgets to renew her car’s registration and is stopped by police ten days after it lapses. The car is unregistered (section 9(1)), but its CTP policy is still within the 30 days of grace (section 99A(8)(a)), so it is not uninsured. Paying the $502 expiation fee ends the matter without a conviction (Expiation of Offences Act section 15). In court the penalty could be below the fee (Kostoff).
Middle range. A man borrows a friend’s ute to move house. Police stop him, and the registration expired six weeks earlier, so the ute is unregistered and uninsured. He is not an owner or the registered operator. If he proves that he did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that it was unregistered and uninsured, he has a defence (sections 9(1c), 102(1c)). The friend, as owner, faces the owner offences unless an owner defence applies (sections 9(3), 102(2)).
Upper range. A driver keeps using a car months after its registration lapsed and injures a cyclist. The car is unregistered and uninsured (sections 9(1), 102(1)). The cyclist may sue the nominal defendant (section 116(2)), which may then recover from the driver the sum it pays, or a just and reasonable part (section 116(7b)). The section 116(7c) defence does not help a driver who knew the car was uninsured, and a court could consider a disqualification under section 168 of the Road Traffic Act (Singh).
How we defend a driving unregistered or uninsured charge
Most of these cases turn on two questions: whether a statutory defence applies, and if not, how to keep the outcome in proportion, including whether a conviction is recorded. We start with both.
| Stage | What happens | What we do |
|---|---|---|
| Notice or summons | An expiation notice, or a summons if police go straight to court. | Check the dates, the CTP grace period and who the owner and registered operator were. |
| Decision | Pay, seek a review as trifling, or elect to be prosecuted. | Advise you before the payment date on the option that suits the facts. |
| Defence | Strict liability, subject to the statutory defences. | Gather evidence for any defence, such as employment records, proof of sale or proof the vehicle was taken unlawfully, and lodge any statutory declaration in time. |
| Hearing or plea | The charge is heard, or a plea is entered. | Run the defence, or put the circumstances of the lapse before the court. |
| Penalty | A fine, a possible no-conviction order and any disqualification application. | Argue for a fair penalty and for no conviction under section 24 of the Sentencing Act 2017, and against any disqualification. |
We cannot promise a particular result, and no lawyer can. We can make sure the choice between paying and going to court is made on the law and the facts, before the payment date passes.
Every hour matters. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation, or call (08) 7094 2021 now.
Driving unregistered and uninsured case law
These are the decisions this guide relies on. The case notes state what each court decided.
| Case | Court | Principle | Pinpoint |
|---|---|---|---|
| Singh v Police [2013] SASC 155 | Supreme Court | Strict liability; expired registration means uninsured; disqualification hard to justify; no convictions | [18], [20], [22], [35], [39], [43] to [45] |
| McFarlane v Police [2014] SASC 55 | Supreme Court | Abolition of registration labels changed nothing; strict liability | [20] to [23] |
| Bilaczenko v Police [2017] SASC 86 | Supreme Court | No honest and reasonable mistake defence; late payment does not backdate cover | [21], [24] to [25], [27] |
| Bilaczenko v Police [2018] SASC 117 | Supreme Court | Mistake available only through sections 9(1a) and 102(1a) | [25] to [26] |
| Police v Kostoff [2014] SASC 130 | Supreme Court | The expiation fee is not the starting point; no convictions | [3], [8] to [12], [34] |
| Brookes v Police [2014] SASC 22 | Supreme Court | Inadvertent failure to renew; convictions set aside | [22], [24], [29] to [31] |
| Brown v Police [2009] SASC 45 | Supreme Court | The no-conviction discretion to be used sparingly | [13] |
| Frick v Police [2011] SASC 17 | Supreme Court | Miniature quad bike on the street; convictions quashed | [16] to [18] |
| Police v Hallett [2010] SASC 256 | Supreme Court | View that an unregistrable mini-motorcycle cannot lawfully be ridden on a road | [79] to [81] |
| Draper v Police [2009] SASC 264 | Supreme Court | Section 168 disqualification inappropriate where Parliament provided none | [21] to [22] |
| R v Knowles [2007] SASC 185 | Court of Criminal Appeal | Fine-only counts not included in a single prison sentence | [25] to [26] |
| Cavuoto v Police [2010] SASC 343 | Supreme Court | Trade plates protect only when used as the Act allows | [19], [25] to [26] |
| Harvey v Police [2009] SASC 302 | Supreme Court | A passenger who turned the key was not proved to be the driver | [22] to [32] |
Case notes
Singh v Police [2013] SASC 155
A car being test-driven had been unregistered for about five weeks, and was therefore also uninsured ([18]). Both offences are strict liability ([20], [22]). Kourakis CJ said a disqualification was difficult to justify in that case ([35]), that deterrence carries less weight for expiable offences ([39]), and recorded no convictions ([43] to [45]).
McFarlane v Police [2014] SASC 55
An owner prosecuted over camera-detected registration offences argued that the abolition of registration labels changed the law. David J held that it did not, and that the offences remain strict liability ([20] to [23]).
Bilaczenko v Police [2017] SASC 86
An owner convicted in his absence of causing an unregistered and uninsured car to stand on a road had no arguable defence. Honest and reasonable mistake was unavailable ([21]), the employer defences did not apply to his own car ([24] to [25]), and backdated payment did not help ([27]). A retrial was ordered because he had been denied a fair trial.
Bilaczenko v Police [2018] SASC 117
On the retrial, Nicholson J held that the offences are strict liability subject to the statutory defences, and that honest and reasonable mistake is available only where the preconditions in section 9(1a) or 102(1a) are made out ([25] to [26]). The appeal was dismissed.
Police v Kostoff [2014] SASC 130
An owner elected to be prosecuted, not knowing that paying would have avoided a conviction ([2] to [4]). The magistrate erred in treating the expiation fee as the starting point, because the court must impose a fair penalty for the case ([8] to [12]). No convictions were recorded ([34]).
Brookes v Police [2014] SASC 22
A 58-year-old with no record forgot, while unwell, to renew her registration and licence. The test for not recording a conviction was easily met ([22]), the approach to careless driving did not necessarily carry over ([24]), and the convictions were set aside ([29] to [31]).
Brown v Police [2009] SASC 45
Convictions for driving unregistered and uninsured were upheld, and Nyland J said the discretion not to record a conviction should be used sparingly ([13]).
Frick v Police [2011] SASC 17
A learner rode a four-wheeled miniature bike a short distance on the street to test it, and pleaded guilty to driving it unregistered and uninsured. The convictions on those counts were quashed ([16] to [18]).
Police v Hallett [2010] SASC 256
A police appeal over a mini-motorcycle rider succeeded on procedural fairness. Gray J also expressed the view, on a point not needed for the decision and on the 2010 definitions, that a mini-motorcycle that cannot be registered cannot lawfully be ridden on a road ([79] to [81]).
Draper v Police [2009] SASC 264
A 2-day disqualification for towing a trailer whose registration had lapsed was set aside. It was inappropriate to use section 168 of the Road Traffic Act where Parliament had chosen not to provide a disqualification ([21] to [22]).
R v Knowles [2007] SASC 185
The Court of Criminal Appeal treated the unregistered and uninsured counts as offences punishable only by fine, which could not be swept into one sentence of imprisonment ([25] to [26]).
Cavuoto v Police [2010] SASC 343
Trade plates kept inside an unregistered vehicle did not bring it within the exemption, which applies only if the vehicle bears trade plates and is driven in conformity with the trade plate provisions ([19]). Charging sections 9 and 102 was not an abuse of process ([25] to [26]).
Harvey v Police [2009] SASC 302
A passenger who turned the key and made a parked car lurch was not proved beyond reasonable doubt to have driven it, and the findings of guilt were set aside ([22] to [32]).
Frequently asked questions
What is the fine for driving an unregistered or uninsured car in SA?
From 1 July 2026 the expiation fee is $502 for driving unregistered and $927 for driving uninsured. The maximum court fines are $7,500 and $10,000 (sections 9 and 102). The victims of crime levy is separate.
Do I lose demerit points for driving unregistered?
No. Schedule 4 of the Motor Vehicles Regulations 2025 prescribes no demerit points for driving unregistered or uninsured.
Can I lose my licence for driving unregistered or uninsured?
Not automatically. Neither section provides for it. A court may disqualify under section 168 of the Road Traffic Act, but in Singh the Supreme Court said a disqualification was difficult to justify ([35]), and in Draper it held that using section 168 was inappropriate in that case ([21] to [22]).
Is my CTP still valid if my registration has expired?
For 30 days. The policy stays in force for the registration period and a further 30-day period of grace (section 99A(8)(a)). After that the vehicle is uninsured as well as unregistered.
I did not know my registration had expired. Is that a defence?
Not for an owner, because the offences are strict liability (Singh; Bilaczenko). A driver who is not an owner or the registered operator has a defence if they prove they did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known (sections 9(1c), 102(1c)).
Can I drive an unregistered car to get it registered?
Only where the Act permits it, for example under a permit under section 16, which treats the vehicle as registered and insured while the permit is in force (section 16(4), (5)). Without a permit or another exemption, the usual offences apply.
Will paying the expiation notice give me a conviction?
No. Expiation bars a prosecution for the offence and is not an admission of guilt (Expiation of Offences Act section 15(1), (4); Kostoff at [3]).
Who is liable if someone else drove my car?
The owner, when an unregistered or uninsured vehicle is driven or found standing on a road (sections 9(3), 102(2)), unless an owner defence applies, such as reasonable steps to make users aware or the vehicle being taken unlawfully (sections 9(4a), (5), (6); 102(3aa), (3a), (3b)).
What happens if I crash while uninsured and someone is hurt?
The injured person may sue the nominal defendant (section 116(2)), which may then recover from the driver: the full sum in the cases in section 116(7), such as a blood alcohol concentration of .1 or more, and otherwise the sum or a just and reasonable part of it (section 116(7b)).
Do I need a lawyer for driving unregistered or uninsured?
Often not, if the notice is simply paid. If you have a defence, or are thinking of electing to go to court, we can advise on the evidence and the risks before the payment date. Call (08) 7094 2021.
South Australian courts we attend for driving unregistered and uninsured charges
We defend driving unregistered and uninsured charges in the Adelaide Magistrates Court and the suburban and regional Magistrates Courts listed below.
Courts we attend
Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021.
Related traffic guides and case studies
Related guides
- Traffic Lawyers Adelaide
- Drivers licence offences
- Driving unlicensed
- Driving disqualified
- Speeding offences SA
- Contesting a speeding or camera fine
- Driving without due care
- Avoiding a conviction under section 24 of the Sentencing Act
- No conviction for driving disqualified after a short drive: case study
- No conviction for driving disqualified after a two-day demerit error: case study
Related Insights
No Conviction for Driving While Disqualified After Short Drive
Driving While Disqualified No Conviction Case Study Talon Legal recently represented a visiting overseas professional in the Magistrates Court who pleaded guilty to driving while…
How Can I Avoid a Conviction Being Recorded?
Penalty Without Conviction In South Australia, courts have discretion to impose a penalty or sentence without recording a conviction pursuant to Section 24 of the Sentencing…
No Conviction for Driving While Disqualified Two Days Into a Demerit Disqualification
Talon Legal acted for a client who drove two days into a demerit disqualification after misreading the notice. The Magistrates Court discharged him on a section 97 good behaviour bond without recording a conviction.