Reduce or Avoid Licence Disqualifications for Speed or Dangerous Driving Offences
Trifling Applications Under Section 46(3)
Section 46 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) allows a court to reduce the minimum disqualification period for a first offence where the driving, though technically in breach of section 46, is deemed trifling.
To secure this reduction, the court must already have determined (or the defendant must have admitted) that the offence contravenes section 46. The burden then shifts to the defendant, who must give sworn evidence on oath proving that the offence is indeed trifling.
If successful, the court may impose a disqualification shorter than the usual minimum but not less than one month.
What is a Trifling Offence in South Australia?
Each case will depend on its own facts. Whether an offence is trifling will always be a question of fact and degree. The circumstances of the case must be unusual or atypical before a court should find that the offence is trifling.
Unusual or Atypical Circumstances
- The facts of the case must deviate from the typical scenarios that Parliament intended to prohibit.
- Merely asserting that the defendant “did not cause actual harm” is insufficient; the focus is whether the danger was significant, real, or likely.
Technical Breach or Minor Risk
- If a speeding or dangerous driving offence is barely over the limit and demonstrably poses little to no genuine danger, it may qualify as trifling (see Craig v Dunsmore (1986) 128 LSJS 293).
- Factors such as extremely short distances, minimal traffic, or unusual urgency can support a trifling argument (Kowald v Hoile (1976) 14 SASR 314).
Momentary Inattention or Inadvertence
- Where the breach is accidental, fleeting, or does not reflect the sort of risk that section 46 primarily targets, courts may consider it trifling.
- If the driving was deliberate or reckless, a trifling classification is rarely (if ever) granted.
Real or Cogent Potential for Danger
- Even if nobody was injured, a high risk of collision or harm will prevent the offence from being classed as trivial.
- The court distinguishes between actual and potential dangers; if a scenario presented a strong likelihood of hazard, trifling status is unlikely.
Examples of Trifling Offences
| Case | Speed | Circumstances | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hills v Heynemann (Unreported, No 1791, 29 September 1989) | 102 km/h on a wet suburban road at 3:00 am. | The road was deserted with clear vision on each side. | Trifling; the potential of danger was not real or cogent. |
| Cannon v Drinkwater (Unreported, Olsson J, 24 January 1991) | 104 km/h in a 60 km/h zone on a main arterial road at 5:30 am. | There were other cars on the road, and the surface was wet. | Not trifling; risk was substantial in the circumstances. |
| Owen v Connellan (1991) 53 A Crim R 236; 15 MVR 60 | 155 km/h in a 110 km/h zone | South Eastern Freeway, midday. Road was dry, vehicle in good condition, and light traffic | Trifling; the defendant’s circumstances and road conditions did not suggest a significant danger. |
| Marsh v Miller (1991) 15 MVR 88 | 110 km/h along Waite Road for 700 m at 10:50 pm. | The defendant’s car was in good condition, and he was rushing home for an ill pet. | Trifling; although speeding, the likelihood of real danger was minimal |
| Tidswell v Police [1998] SASC 6822 | 104 km/h in a 60 km/h zone on Waverley Ridge Road. | Fine weather and good visibility. | Not trifling; property access points, & intersecting streets created a real risk. |
| Police v Sperber [1999] SASC 24 | 120 km/h in a 60 km/h zone on Braund Road | Short burst of speed to avoid hazard from merging car. | Trifling; the acceleration was brief and aimed at reducing danger |
| Wu v Police [2006] SASC 48 | Erratic, high-speed driving over several minutes. | Driving over footpaths, lawns, claimed fear of attack by a passenger. | Not trifling; conduct far exceeded any immediate self-defence necessity. |
| Speake v Police [2008] SASC 314 | Roll-Over accident. Miscalculated turn near Leigh Creek. | Momentary Inattention. No issues with speed or driving style until the abrupt poor decision. | Trifling; Unlit intersection, moderate speed & inadvertence. Rare outcome. |
Charged With Dangerous Driving?
Trifling applications under section 46(3)(b) require the defendant to demonstrate that, although their driving offended section 46, the offence arose in unusual or atypical circumstances such that real or cogent danger to the public was either minimal or absent.
If the court is satisfied, it may impose a disqualification shorter than the one month minimum. Rarely do deliberate, sustained, or significantly dangerous breaches qualify for quality as trifling offences, but cases of technical or momentary lapses, with minimal risk, may be considered trifling.
If You Don’t Have a Lawyer and Go to Court
If you appear unrepresented in court, the magistrate must inform you of the possible penalties and advise you of your right to make a trifling application if there is any indication that the circumstances may justify it (Taylor v Police [1998] SASC 6540).
This is crucial to ensure you are aware of the opportunity to reduce the mandatory disqualification period and given the possibility of imprisonment if you are charged with an offence such as driving in a dangerous manner.
Book Your Free 30-Minute Consultation
Book a free 30-minute consultation to find if the circumstances of your dangerous driving charges are trifling and what defences may may apply. Talon Legal have successfully defended many motorists from licence disqualifications, demerit points, fines and imprisonment.
