Police Pursuit Charges SA: Dangerous Driving to Escape Police (Section 19AC)
Police pursuit charges in South Australia
A police pursuit charge under section 19AC carries up to 3 years imprisonment, or 5 years if it is aggravated, and every conviction brings a licence disqualification of at least 2 years that no court can reduce. Talon Legal defends police pursuit and failing to stop charges in Magistrates Courts across South Australia. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021.
Police pursuit key facts
| Issue | Position in South Australia |
|---|---|
| Governing law | Section 19AC of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), current version on the South Australian register as at 7 November 2026. |
| The offence | Driving in a culpably negligent manner, recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner dangerous to any person, while intending to escape pursuit by a police officer or to cause a police officer to engage in a pursuit (section 19AC(1)). |
| Maximum penalty | Imprisonment for 3 years for a basic offence and 5 years for an aggravated offence. No fine is prescribed (section 19AC(1)). |
| Aggravated offence | A stolen vehicle or one used without the owner's consent, driving while knowingly disqualified or suspended, a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more, or driving in contravention of section 47 or 47BA of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) (section 5AA(1b)). |
| Licence | A disqualification of at least 2 years on every conviction. It cannot be reduced, mitigated or replaced with another penalty, and it cancels the licence (section 19AC(2)). |
| The vehicle | Police can clamp or impound the vehicle for 28 days once a person has been told they will be reported, or has been charged or arrested. On conviction, the court must order the vehicle forfeited on the prosecution's application unless a ground in section 13 of the Criminal Law (Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) Act 2007 (SA) applies. |
| Failing to stop | A separate offence under section 40H(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA), with a maximum penalty of a $5,000 fine. |
| Classification | A minor indictable offence, because the maximum term does not exceed 5 years (section 5(3)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA)). |
| First step | Same-day free 30-minute consultation. Call (08) 7094 2021. |
Charged with a police pursuit offence? What section 19AC covers
Section 19AC of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) makes it an offence to drive dangerously while trying to get away from police, or while trying to draw police into a chase. This guide sets out police pursuit SA law: what the prosecution must prove, when the charge is aggravated, the penalties and licence consequences, what happens to the car, and how the charge differs from failing to stop. It states the law current to 7 November 2026.
The offence sits alongside the other dangerous driving charges on our Reckless and Dangerous Driving page. Where the intention to escape is not proved, section 19B(5) makes dangerous driving under section 46 of the Road Traffic Act an alternative verdict.
Free Consultation. What is said to police after a pursuit can affect how the charge is framed. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021.
On this page
- What does the prosecution have to prove?
- What makes a police pursuit aggravated?
- What is the penalty for a police pursuit in SA?
- How long is the licence disqualification?
- Can police take the car?
- How is failing to stop different?
- Can the charge be reduced to dangerous driving?
- What if police cannot prove who was driving?
- How similar cases tend to play out
- How we defend a police pursuit charge
- Police pursuit case law
- Frequently asked questions
What does the prosecution have to prove?
The prosecution must prove that the accused drove a motor vehicle in one of the dangerous ways the section lists, and that the accused did so intending to escape pursuit by a police officer, or intending to cause a police officer to engage in a pursuit (section 19AC(1)).
The intention is what separates this charge from ordinary dangerous driving. In Laidlaw v Police [2008] SASC 340, the Supreme Court said the attempt to escape police is an element of the offence, so a sentencing court cannot also treat it as making the offence worse ([26] to [27]).
| Element | What it means in practice |
|---|---|
| Driving a motor vehicle | The prosecution must prove the accused was the driver. In pursuit cases that is often the real issue (see identity). |
| Driving that is dangerous | Culpably negligent, reckless, or at a speed or in a manner dangerous to any person. Since 26 January 2014 the section says "any person"; earlier charges said "the public". |
| Intention to escape | An intention to escape pursuit by a police officer, or to cause a police officer to engage in a pursuit. It is usually proved by inference from lights, sirens and the driving itself. |
| A police officer | The pursuer must be a police officer. A driver who did not know the pursuer was police cannot have intended to escape police. |
The Act does not define “pursuit”. Whether a pursuit had begun, and when the accused knew it was police, are questions of fact in each case.
Danger to a passenger counts. In R v Pannett [2015] SASCFC 52, the Full Court held that passengers in or on a vehicle are within “the public” ([35]), and said the 2014 change to “any person” restated the law to avoid any ambiguity ([36]).
Injury is not an element. The section is about driving that is dangerous to any person. Where a pursuit causes death or harm, the offence of causing death or harm under section 19A can apply, and it is aggravated if committed in the course of attempting to escape pursuit by a police officer (section 5AA(1a)(a)).
What makes a police pursuit aggravated?
An offence against section 19AC is aggravated if it is committed in one or more of the circumstances in section 5AA(1b). The aggravated offence carries a maximum of 5 years imprisonment instead of 3.
| Circumstance | Section |
|---|---|
| Driving or using a stolen vehicle | 5AA(1b)(a)(i) |
| Driving or using a vehicle without the owner's consent, knowing of that or reckless as to it | 5AA(1b)(a)(ii) |
| Driving knowing that the driver was disqualified, or that the licence was suspended by notice under the Road Traffic Act | 5AA(1b)(b) |
| A blood alcohol concentration of .08 grams or more in 100 millilitres of blood | 5AA(1b)(c) |
| Driving in contravention of section 47 or 47BA of the Road Traffic Act | 5AA(1b)(d) |
The same conduct is sometimes charged twice: once as the circumstance of aggravation, and again as a separate count such as drink driving or driving disqualified. A court cannot punish an offender twice for elements that two offences share (Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57 at [40]). In Laidlaw, the separate drink driving conviction was set aside because the blood alcohol reading was the aggravation of the section 19AC count ([21] to [25], [28]). Overlap of this kind should be raised before any plea is entered.
What is the penalty for a police pursuit in SA?
The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years for a basic offence and 5 years for an aggravated offence (section 19AC(1)). The section prescribes no fine.
The Supreme Court treats pursuits as serious offending in which general deterrence carries significant weight (Parsons v Police [2008] SASC 339 at [70]; White v Police [2016] SASC 94 at [23]). In Thompson v Police [2007] SASC 370, the Court noted that section 19AC carries a much higher penalty than the dangerous driving charge previously used for pursuits, reflecting Parliament’s view of the conduct ([14]).
Immediate imprisonment has been upheld on appeal (Thompson [16] to [18]), but the outcome turns on the facts and the person. In Stevens v Police [2015] SASC 73, a 20-year-old with no relevant record was resentenced to 3 months imprisonment, suspended on a bond, because a suspended sentence would deter in his case ([9] to [15]). There is no rule that a first offender’s sentence should be a set fraction of the maximum (Daniele v South Australia Police [2020] SASC 76 at [17] to [20]).
Section 19AC is a designated offence under the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) (section 96(9)). That limits the options for someone with a recent record:
- a sentence cannot be suspended if, in the 5 years before the offence, a court suspended a sentence of imprisonment imposed on the person for a designated offence (section 96(3)(d));
- home detention is not available if, in that 5 year period, the person was sentenced to imprisonment (other than a suspended sentence), home detention or an intensive correction order for a designated offence (section 71(2)(b)(iv));
- the same 5 year restriction applies to intensive correction orders (section 81(3)(ab)(iii)).
| Case | Offending | Result | Pinpoint |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stevens v Police [2015] SASC 73 | Dangerous driving in a built-up area near a school; 20 years old, no relevant record | 3 months imprisonment, suspended on a bond | [6], [9], [15] |
| Thompson v Police [2007] SASC 370 | Alcohol-fuelled offending while disqualified under three orders | 4 months imprisonment; refusal to suspend upheld | [1], [13] to [18] |
| Laidlaw v Police [2008] SASC 340 | Aggravated (blood alcohol); about 100 km/h over about a kilometre with a passenger, partly on the wrong side | 12 months, reduced to 8 for the plea and time in custody, suspended | [6] to [10], [41] |
| Daniele v South Australia Police [2020] SASC 76 | Motorcycle at about 170 km/h on a highway, several times on the wrong side; pursuit called off | 10 months notional, reduced to 6 for an early plea | [7], [24] |
| White v Police [2016] SASC 94 | Extensive pursuit at up to 140 km/h in a 70 zone, five red lights, partner as passenger; second offence | 12 months notional; 9 months after a 25% reduction | [2], [6], [19], [23] |
| Budiono v Police [2019] SASC 37 | Long night pursuit at over 120 km/h in an 80 zone, red lights, lights off, across a median to avoid road spikes | Starting point of 16 months on appeal; 9 months 18 days after reductions | [51] to [52], [75] |
Each result turned on its own facts, the person’s record and the reductions available at the time. The table shows the range courts have worked within. It is not a prediction.
How long is the licence disqualification?
On every conviction, the court must disqualify the person from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for at least 2 years (section 19AC(2)(a)). The disqualification cannot be reduced or mitigated in any way, or replaced with any other penalty or sentence (section 19AC(2)(b)), and it cancels any licence the person holds (section 19AC(2)(c)).
Two years is the minimum. Courts can order more, and disqualifications for separate offences can be ordered to run one after the other. In Paull v Police [2007] SASC 449, the 2 year pursuit disqualification was ordered to follow a drink driving disqualification from the same night, and the order was upheld ([8] to [9]).
The total still has to be proportionate. In Police v Schutt [2018] SASC 75, the Supreme Court said disqualification is part of the sentence and its total effect matters, and held that 9 years built by stacking minimum periods was too long ([46] to [51]).
Because the disqualification follows a conviction, the key licence question is usually the charge itself. A first offence of dangerous driving under section 46 carries a disqualification of at least 12 months, which the court can reduce only if the offence is trifling.
Can police take the car?
Yes. Regulation 4 of the Criminal Law (Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) Regulations 2022 prescribes indictable offences against Part 3 Division 6 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which contains section 19AC, as forfeiture offences.
- Before the case ends: once a person has been told they will be reported for the offence, or has been charged with or arrested for it, police can clamp or impound the vehicle allegedly used, or any vehicle the person is a registered owner of (section 5 of the Act). The period is 28 days (section 6).
- On conviction: the court must, on the prosecution’s application, order the vehicle forfeited to the Crown (section 12(1)(a)(i)).
- Grounds to decline: the court may decline if forfeiture would cause severe financial or physical hardship to a person, the offence happened without the owner’s knowledge or consent, a credit provider’s rights would be significantly prejudiced, or the vehicle has since been sold to a genuine purchaser (section 13(1)).
- Community service instead: if the court declines and community service is reasonably practicable, it must order up to 240 hours of community service (section 13(2)).
The court can decline only if one of the section 13(1) grounds exists (Cutting v Police [2009] SASC 326 at [14]). Evidence of hardship, or of the owner’s lack of knowledge, should be gathered early.
How is failing to stop different?
Failing to stop is a separate and less serious offence. An authorised officer, which includes a police officer, may direct the driver of a vehicle to stop for the purpose of, or in connection with, exercising other powers under a road law (section 40H(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA)). A person subject to the direction who contravenes it commits an offence, with a maximum penalty of $5,000 (section 40H(5)). To stop means to stop the vehicle and keep it stationary (section 40H(6)).
A direction can be given orally or by a sign or signal, electronic or otherwise (section 40L(1)). In R v Neal [2017] SASCFC 44, the Full Court said section 40H does not let police physically stop a moving vehicle; it authorises a direction, and a valid direction imposes a duty on the driver to stop ([32], [35]).
The driver must have known police were directing a stop. For the parallel failure to stop offence in section 47E(2a), the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must prove the driver knew a police officer was directing him to stop, but not that he knew why (Police v Pearce [2013] SASC 181 at [23] to [24]), and said the content of that offence is for present purposes the same as section 40H(5) ([22]).
| Failing to stop (s 40H(5)) | Police pursuit (s 19AC) | |
|---|---|---|
| What must be proved | A direction to stop, and conduct that contravened it | Dangerous driving with an intention to escape pursuit or to cause one |
| Maximum penalty | $5,000 fine | 3 years imprisonment, or 5 years if aggravated |
| Licence | Disqualification at the court's discretion (Road Traffic Act section 168(1)) | At least 2 years, cannot be reduced |
| Vehicle | Not a prescribed offence under regulation 5 of the 2022 Regulations | A forfeiture offence: impounding and forfeiture apply |
Driving off when signalled can be charged as failing to stop rather than as a pursuit. In Police v Taleporos [2022] SASC 92, a driver who accelerated away from police lights, after which police ended the pursuit, was charged under section 40H(5) ([19]).
Can the charge be reduced to dangerous driving?
Sometimes. At a trial of a section 19AC charge, if the intention to escape is not proved, the fact-finder may convict of dangerous driving under section 46 of the Road Traffic Act, or of careless driving under section 45 (section 19B(5) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act). The same outcome can be negotiated before trial, as the aggravated police pursuit case study shows.
A separate conviction for careless driving on the same driving cannot stand alongside a section 19AC conviction. In Hackett v Police [2015] SASC 62, the careless driving conviction was quashed as duplicative because careless driving is an alternative verdict to section 19AC ([36]).
Other provisions connect to the pursuit offence:
- section 19AC(3): a person tried on a charge under section 29 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act cannot be convicted of both that offence and section 19AC on the same circumstances, and section 19AC is an alternative verdict only if it is specified in the charge;
- section 19B(4): at a trial for causing death or harm by dangerous driving aggravated by a pursuit, the jury may convict of section 19AC instead;
- sections 45(3)(b)(i) and 45A(4a)(b)(i) of the Road Traffic Act: committing careless driving, or driving at an excessive speed, in the course of attempting to escape pursuit by a police officer makes those offences aggravated.
What if police cannot prove who was driving?
Identity is often the main issue in a pursuit case, because officers may see the driver only briefly, at night or at speed. The prosecution must prove identity beyond reasonable doubt.
- Police v Williams [2014] SASC 177: after a long pursuit of a stolen car, police descriptions of the driver were of limited weight and could not prove identity ([47] to [49], [186]), and the convictions were set aside ([328]).
- Police v Silk [2009] SASC 52: recognition evidence resting on two brief observations, one with the driver’s face in shadow in a moving car, left the magistrate in doubt, and no error was shown ([17] to [19]).
- Hackett v Police: recognition by two officers who knew the driver and had clear views for 5 to 10 seconds was safely relied on ([19], [28] to [30]).
How similar cases tend to play out
Three illustrations of how section 19AC and the related provisions apply on ordinary facts. They are not predictions. The result depends on the evidence, the person’s history and the court.
Lower range. A 19-year-old P-plater sees police lights in the mirror late at night, panics and accelerates for a few hundred metres before pulling over. No one else is on the road. The prosecution must prove an intention to escape and driving that was dangerous to any person. If the intention cannot be proved, the alternatives are dangerous driving under section 46 or careless driving under section 45 (section 19B(5)).
Middle range. A driver with a blood alcohol reading of .09 drives off when police signal, travels about a kilometre at high speed with a passenger, and stops. The .09 reading makes the offence aggravated (section 5AA(1b)(c)), so the maximum is 5 years and the disqualification is at least 2 years. If drink driving is also charged as a separate count, the overlap is a live issue (Laidlaw).
Upper range. A disqualified driver leads police through several suburbs at well over the limit, runs red lights and crosses a median to avoid road spikes. The offence is aggravated because the driver knew of the disqualification (section 5AA(1b)(b)). The prosecution is likely to seek immediate imprisonment, and the car can be impounded and forfeited on conviction.
How we defend a police pursuit charge
Most pursuit cases turn on four questions: who was driving, whether the intention to escape can be proved, whether the driving was dangerous, and whether the charges overlap. We start with all four.
| Stage | What happens | What we do |
|---|---|---|
| Arrest or report | Police may interview, impound the car and charge. | Advise before any interview, and check the impound notice and the 28 day period. |
| Disclosure | In-car video, radio logs, speed estimates and statements. | Test the speed figures, the timeline and the point at which police stopped following. |
| Charge review | Section 19AC, often with separate counts. | Write to the prosecution about intention, identity and any double counting of the aggravation. |
| Negotiation or hearing | The charge proceeds, is amended, or is withdrawn. | Seek a withdrawal or an alternative charge such as section 46, or run the hearing. |
| Sentence and vehicle | Penalty, disqualification and any forfeiture application. | Put rehabilitation evidence before the court and argue any section 13 ground on the vehicle. |
We cannot promise a particular result, and no lawyer can. We can make sure the prosecution proves every part of its case, including the intention that makes this a section 19AC charge.
Every hour matters. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation, or call (08) 7094 2021 now.
Police pursuit case law
These are the decisions this guide relies on. The case notes state what each court decided.
| Case | Court | Principle | Pinpoint |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laidlaw v Police [2008] SASC 340 | Supreme Court | The escape is an element, not an aggravating factor; separate drink driving count set aside; sentence suspended | [21] to [28], [41] |
| Parsons v Police [2008] SASC 339 | Supreme Court | Pursuits are prevalent and general deterrence matters | [70] |
| Thompson v Police [2007] SASC 370 | Supreme Court | Higher penalty reflects Parliament's view; immediate custody open | [14], [16] to [18] |
| Stevens v Police [2015] SASC 73 | Supreme Court | Young first offender; suspended sentence would deter | [9] to [15] |
| White v Police [2016] SASC 94 | Supreme Court | Serious pursuit; general deterrence carries significant weight | [19], [23] |
| Budiono v Police [2019] SASC 37 | Supreme Court | Very serious pursuit; starting point within range | [51] to [52] |
| Daniele v South Australia Police [2020] SASC 76 | Supreme Court | No fixed fraction of the maximum for a first offender | [17] to [20], [24] |
| Police v Schutt [2018] SASC 75 | Supreme Court | Disqualification is part of the sentence; stacked minimums too long | [46] to [51] |
| Paull v Police [2007] SASC 449 | Supreme Court | Cumulative disqualifications for offences on the same night | [8] to [9] |
| R v Pannett [2015] SASCFC 52 | Full Court | Passengers are within "the public"; "any person" restates the law | [35] to [36] |
| R v Neal [2017] SASCFC 44 | Full Court | A direction to stop imposes a duty; no power to physically stop | [32], [35] |
| Police v Pearce [2013] SASC 181 | Supreme Court | Knowledge of the direction to stop must be proved | [22] to [24] |
| Police v Williams [2014] SASC 177 | Supreme Court | Descriptions of the driver could not prove identity | [47] to [49], [186], [328] |
| Hackett v Police [2015] SASC 62 | Supreme Court | Recognition evidence; duplicative careless driving conviction quashed | [28] to [30], [36] |
| Police v Taleporos [2022] SASC 92 | Supreme Court | Driving off from police lights charged as failing to stop | [19] |
| Cutting v Police [2009] SASC 326 | Supreme Court | Forfeiture can be declined only on a section 13(1) ground | [14] |
| R v Dundovic [2008] SASC 136 | Court of Criminal Appeal | Outrunning police endangers innocent road users; firm response | [12], [27] |
| Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57 | High Court | No double punishment for elements two offences share | [40] |
Case notes
Laidlaw v Police [2008] SASC 340
The appellant drove at about 100 km/h with police lights and siren behind him, with a passenger and partly on the wrong side of the road, and his blood alcohol was the circumstance of aggravation ([6] to [10]). The Court set aside the separate drink driving conviction because blood alcohol was the aggravation of the section 19AC count ([21] to [25], [28]), and held that the magistrate erred in treating the attempt to escape as aggravating the offending, because it is an element ([26] to [27]). The appellant was resentenced to 12 months, reduced to 8 for the plea and time in custody, and the sentence was suspended ([41]).
Parsons v Police [2008] SASC 339
On resentencing for an aggravated pursuit at over 100 km/h in a 50 km/h zone, the Court said attempts to evade police in high speed pursuits had become prevalent and endanger the driver, passengers, the public and police, so that general deterrence matters ([28], [70]).
Thompson v Police [2007] SASC 370
The Court said section 19AC was a new offence carrying a much higher penalty than the section 46 charge previously used, reflecting Parliament’s view of pursuits ([14]). A sentence of 4 months for alcohol-fuelled offending by a driver disqualified under three orders was moderate, and the magistrate was entitled to require immediate custody ([13], [15] to [18]).
Stevens v Police [2015] SASC 73
A 20-year-old with no relevant record drove dangerously in a built-up area near a school ([6]). The magistrate did not weigh his prospects of rehabilitation against deterrence or explain why a suspended sentence could not deter ([9] to [13]). The Court substituted 3 months imprisonment suspended on a bond ([14] to [15]).
White v Police [2016] SASC 94
An extensive pursuit at speeds up to 140 km/h in a 70 zone, through five red lights, was an extremely serious example of the offence ([6], [10] to [11]). Measured against the 3 year maximum, a notional 12 months was appropriate, and general deterrence carries significant weight for this offence ([19], [23]).
Budiono v Police [2019] SASC 37
A night pursuit at over 120 km/h in an 80 zone, through red lights with the headlights off, was very serious though not the worst of its kind, and a 2 year starting point was towards the upper end but within range ([51] to [52]). On resentencing with new material, the Court used a 16 month starting point ([75]).
Daniele v South Australia Police [2020] SASC 76
There is no principle that a first offender’s sentence should approximate one fifth of the maximum, and the magistrate’s reasons were inadequate because they did not explain how the sentence was reached after raising that idea ([17] to [20]). A notional 10 months was reduced to 6 months for a plea at the first opportunity ([24]).
Police v Schutt [2018] SASC 75
Disqualification is part of the sentence and its total effect matters, so 9 years built by stacking minimum periods was too long ([46] to [51]).
Paull v Police [2007] SASC 449
The magistrate ordered the 2 year pursuit disqualification to run after the drink driving disqualification ([5] to [6]). The offences were committed at the same time but were separate, so cumulative disqualifications were open despite the effect on the appellant’s job ([8] to [9]).
R v Pannett [2015] SASCFC 52
Whether driving was dangerous to the public is a question of fact, and passengers in or on a vehicle are within “the public” ([35]). The 2014 change to “any person” was made to avoid any ambiguity, and did not show that “the public” had a narrower meaning on a public road ([36]).
R v Neal [2017] SASCFC 44
Section 40H authorises a direction to stop, and a valid direction imposes a duty on the driver; it does not let police physically stop a moving vehicle ([32], [35]).
Police v Pearce [2013] SASC 181
For the failure to stop offence in section 47E(2a), the prosecution must prove the driver knew a police officer was directing him to stop, but need not prove he knew the purpose ([23] to [24]). The Court said the content of that offence is for present purposes the same as section 40H(5) ([22]).
Police v Williams [2014] SASC 177
A stolen car was pursued for up to 58 minutes before it crashed and the driver ran ([10]). The police descriptions of the driver were of limited weight and could not prove identity ([47] to [49], [186]), and the convictions were set aside ([328]).
Hackett v Police [2015] SASC 62
Recognition by two officers who knew the appellant and had unobstructed views of 5 to 10 seconds was safely relied on ([19], [28] to [30]). Because careless driving is an alternative verdict to section 19AC under section 19B(5), the separate careless driving conviction on the same driving was quashed ([36]).
Police v Taleporos [2022] SASC 92
A driver who accelerated away when police activated their lights to stop him, after which police ended the pursuit, was charged under section 40H(5), not section 19AC ([19]).
Cutting v Police [2009] SASC 326
Given the mandatory words of section 12 of the Criminal Law (Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) Act 2007, a court may decline the forfeiture order sought only where a section 13(1) circumstance exists ([14]).
R v Dundovic [2008] SASC 136
In a pursuit case under section 19A, the Court of Criminal Appeal said attempts to outrun police are common, endanger innocent road users, and call for a firm response with attention to general deterrence ([27]). Two earlier pursuits on the same night showed a settled decision to outrun police ([12]).
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57
To the extent that two offences have common elements, it would be wrong to punish the offender twice for those elements ([40]).
Frequently asked questions
Is evading police a criminal offence in SA?
Yes. Driving dangerously while intending to escape a police pursuit is an offence under section 19AC of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, with a maximum of 3 years imprisonment, or 5 years if aggravated. Failing to stop when directed is a separate offence under section 40H(5) of the Road Traffic Act, with a maximum fine of $5,000.
What is the penalty for a police pursuit in SA?
The maximum is 3 years imprisonment for a basic offence and 5 years for an aggravated offence, with a licence disqualification of at least 2 years that cannot be reduced (section 19AC). The car can also be impounded and forfeited.
Will I go to jail for a police pursuit?
Imprisonment is a real prospect, because the courts give general deterrence significant weight for this offence. Sentences have been suspended for young offenders with good prospects (Stevens), but suspension, home detention and intensive correction orders are restricted for anyone with a recent sentence for a designated offence (Sentencing Act 2017 sections 96(3)(d), 71(2)(b)(iv) and 81(3)(ab)(iii)).
How long will I lose my licence for a police pursuit?
At least 2 years, and the court can order more (section 19AC(2)(a)). The disqualification cannot be reduced or replaced with another penalty, and it cancels the licence.
What makes a police pursuit aggravated?
A stolen vehicle or one used without consent, driving while knowingly disqualified or suspended, a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more, or driving under the influence or with a prescribed drug in contravention of section 47 or 47BA of the Road Traffic Act (section 5AA(1b)).
What if I did not know it was police?
The prosecution must prove an intention to escape pursuit by a police officer. That intention is usually inferred from lights, sirens and the driving. If it is a reasonable possibility that the driver did not know police were following or signalling, that part of the case may fail.
Does it matter that no one was hurt?
Injury is not an element. The charge is about driving that was dangerous to any person, which includes a passenger (Pannett). Where a pursuit causes death or harm, the offence under section 19A can apply.
Can police impound my car after a pursuit?
Yes. Section 19AC is a forfeiture offence, so police can clamp or impound the car for 28 days, and on conviction the court must order forfeiture on the prosecution’s application unless a section 13 ground applies, such as severe hardship.
What is the difference between failing to stop and a police pursuit charge?
Failing to stop under section 40H(5) requires only a direction to stop and conduct that contravened it, and carries a fine of up to $5,000. A pursuit charge under section 19AC requires dangerous driving with an intention to escape, and carries imprisonment and a mandatory 2 year disqualification.
Can a police pursuit charge be reduced to dangerous driving?
Yes, in some cases. At trial, the court can convict of dangerous driving or careless driving instead (section 19B(5)), and the same outcome can be negotiated if the intention to escape is weak.
Do I need a lawyer for a police pursuit charge?
A section 19AC conviction brings a disqualification no court can reduce, so the charge itself is the main thing to fight. We can advise on the evidence and the options before the first court date. Call (08) 7094 2021.
South Australian courts we attend for police pursuit charges
We defend police pursuit and failing to stop 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
Related Insights
Aggravated Police Pursuit Charge Withdrawn: Good Behaviour Bond Instead of Imprisonment
An aggravated charge of dangerous driving to escape a police pursuit was withdrawn after our written representations. Our client received a supervised good behaviour bond and no term of imprisonment.
Police Pursuit Charge Withdrawn: Aggravated Due Care and No Conviction for a P-Plater
Charged with dangerous driving to escape a police pursuit, a young P-plater had that charge withdrawn, pleaded guilty to aggravated due care and was discharged without conviction.
Dangerous Driving Basic Due Care Without Conviction | Case Study
No Conviction for Dangerous Driving Our client was charged with dangerous driving while driving a high powered sports car with provisional licence plates. After rigorously…