Trifling Offences and Other Proper Cause to Reduce Demerit Points in South Australia
Trifling Applications & Other Proper Cause to Reduce Demerit Points in SA
Executive Summary
Courts only reduce demerit points where the offending is trifling or where other proper cause exists. The focus is always on the circumstances of the offence, not hardship, employment consequences or personal impact. Typical speeding or ordinary breaches almost never qualify; successful applications turn on something unusual, exceptional, fleeting, technical, inadvertent, or mechanically explained.
Demerit point reduction applications can be made if the Court is persuaded that the offence is trifling or if there is any other proper cause. The application to reduce demerit points must be made after pleading guilty and immediately after a conviction is imposed before the same Magistrate.
What is a Trifling Application or Application to Reduce Demerit Points?
Applications to reduce demerit points in South Australia depend on two tightly defined legal pathways: proving the offence was trifling, or establishing that some other proper cause exists. These pathways arise under section 98B(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) and must be invoked immediately after a guilty plea and sentencing before the same Magistrate in the Magistrates Court of South Australia (or other Court).
How to Keep Your Drivers Licence
Although the wording appears simple, the case law shows the tests are applied with precision. The Court focuses strictly on the circumstances of the offence, not the personal circumstances of the offender. Hardship, job loss or inconvenience – while relevant to other sentencing considerations – do not amount to trifling or proper cause when applying section 98B(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA).
Trifling and proper cause applications often intersect with other areas of law, including no conviction applications under section 23 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) , where the Court assesses whether recording no conviction is appropriate. However, the demerit-point discretion is narrower and focused on the offending itself.
This guide sets out the governing principles, leading authorities, practical examples, and the evidence the Court expects when determining whether a traffic offence is atypical or sufficiently out of the ordinary to justify a reduction. If you are facing a demerit point disqualification, understanding these tests is essential to preserving your licence.
Get a Free Case Review
Get a Free Case Review or call (08) 7094 2021, if you, or someone you know is charged with traffic offences or criminal charges in South Australia, and are worried about a demerit point disqualification. Your future may depend on it.
Talon Legal regularly succeeds in trifling and proper cause applications by preparing disciplined factual analysis, persuasive submissions, and ensuring clients are fully prepared to give evidence in Court.
Section 98B(4) Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA)
An application (i.e., “request”) under section 98B(4) invokes the Court’s discretion to reduce the number of demerit points upon satisfaction of one of two requirements:
- The Offence is Trifling– the circumstances of the offence (not the offender), are of slight importance, insignificant, trivial, fleeting, of little importance, a typical, or sufficient unusual; or
- Any Other Proper Cause Exists – proper cause refers to something that is not quite trifling and the categories are not closed. Proper cause must relate to the offence itself. Hardship to the accused does not amount to proper cause.
Personal hardship such as job loss, inconvenience, hardship for family members, costs is not enough. The discretion turns solely on the circumstances of the offence.
What is a “Trifling” Offence?
“Trifling” means of slight importance, insignificant, or of little moment. Courts have consistently held that a typical or normal instance of an offence will not be trifling. Instead, there must be something unusual or exceptional about the circumstances, such as:
- Minimal risk or danger to others;
- Inadvertent or unintentional breach;
- Emergency or urgent humanitarian reasons; or
- Atypical facts beyond normal wrongdoing.
Reappearing themes: extent of the conduct; degree of departure from the required standard; whether conduct was deliberate or inadvertent; presence of exceptional or emergency circumstances; atypical offending; brief or momentary; (Police v Hughes; Chan).
What the Court Considers
- Finding of fact, not mercy. Whether the circumstances of the offence are trifling is a matter of fact rather than a discretion to exercise mercy.
- Trifling carries its ordinary meaning. “Trifling” means of slight importance, insignificant, or of little moment (Roberts; Chan).
- Typical breaches are not trifling. A normal or typical example of the offence will ordinarily not be trifling; Parliament did not intend routine breaches to be treated exceptionally (Chan; Siviour-Ashman).
- Serious offences are not precluded from being trifling. The fact that an offence category is serious does not of itself preclude a particular instance being trifling (Roberts).
- Soundly-based belief in lawfulness. Ordinarily, there should be a soundly-based belief in the lawfulness of the impugned conduct; deliberate breaches will rarely be trifling, save in cases of urgency or for humanitarian reasons (Roberts; Police v Hughes).
Other Proper Cause: Definition, Proof and Case Law
A particular offence is either trifling or some other proper cause, associated with the circumstances of the particular offence, exists.
The case authorities say that “other proper cause” is confined to the circumstances of the offending and does not encompass impacts which might be suffered by an offender if the prescribed number of demerit points are incurred.
- Extent of the offending conduct
- The degree of departure from the required conduct
- Whether the offence was deliberate or accidental
- Personal hardship is irrelevant
- In relation to offences against the Road Traffic Act, which promotes safe driving conditions, the weight given to inadvertence is lower than for other offences
The term “proper cause” refers to something different from a trifling offence, and so not necessarily as minor a matter as that, but nevertheless something sufficiently out of the ordinary to warrant a reduction in demerit points.
What the Court Considers
- Not quite trifling, but still exceptional. “Proper cause” can be something short of trifling, but must be sufficiently out of the ordinary to warrant reduction (Miles; Chan).
- Hardship is usually insufficient. Employment risk, family reliance and general inconvenience are foreseeable consequences and, standing alone, do not amount to proper cause (Dycer; Holness; Miles).
- Mechanical or environmental anomalies may assist. Faulty instruments or genuinely atypical conditions impacting the specific offence can, in limited cases, support relief (such as in Shillabeer which involved a faulty speedometer); versus Bialobrzeski (where sun glare was insufficient).
What Usually Works (and What Doesn’t) in Trifling / Proper Cause Applications
The table below summarises common fact patterns the South Australian courts see, and how they are usually treated when trifling or “other proper cause” is argued.
| Scenario | Likely Outcome | Notes / Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Scenario Likely Outcome Notes / Authority Typical speeding (5 - 25 km/h over) with nothing atypical | Usually fails | Ordinary contraventions are not trifling. Proper cause requires more than “just a breach”. |
| Faulty speedometer / mechanical irregularity | Potentially successful | Mechanical faults may support proper cause if corroborated: Muto-Henderson v Police |
| Sun glare or environmental factors | Usually fails unless corroborated | Insufficient alone; must show something “out of the ordinary”: House v Police (note 3) |
| Emergency / humanitarian | Sometimes accepted | Only if urgency is real and corroborated: Holness v Police (note 2). |
| Signage / road marking error | Potential relief | May be trifling if the breach arose from atypical signage confusion: Roberts v Polic |
| Very light traffic; fleeting offence | Possible relief | Something “little more than technical” may be trifling: Scuteri v Fuss |
| Seatbelt/stop sign in ordinary conditions | Usually fails | Hardship irrelevant; ordinary breaches do not suffice: Savage v Police. |
Demerit Point Reduction Cases
How These Authorities Are Selected
The cases below are drawn exclusively from South Australian appellate decisions and leading High Court principles that shape the interpretation of “trifling” and “other proper cause”. They represent the core authorities relied upon in licence appeals, sentencing submissions and applications under section 98B(4). Where possible, direct citations and pinpoint references are provided to support legal accuracy and practitioner use.
Key “Trifling” and “Other Proper Cause” Authorities
Main South Australian and High Court authorities on trifling offences and “other proper cause” for demerit point reduction, with pinpoint references and links where available.
- CaseApostolakos v Police
- CaseBialobrezeski v Police
- CaseBlack v Police
- CaseCarbone v Police
- CaseChan v Police
- CaseDean v Police
- CaseGazepis v Police
- CasePolice v Di Fava
- CaseGilbert v Owen
- CaseHepworth v Rowbottom
- CaseHeyne v Police
- CaseHolness v Police
- CaseHouse v The King
- CaseMarkarian v R
- CaseMiles v Police
- CaseMuto-Henderson v Police
- CaseNewton v Larcombe
- CasePolice v Federuzzi
- CasePolice v Hughes
- CaseHughes v Police
- CasePolice v Spooner
- CaseSavage v Police
- CaseShillabeer v Linnane
- CaseSiviour-Ashman v Police
- CaseSvilans v Police
- CaseWhittwer v Police
- CaseRoberts v Police
- CaseDycer v Police
- CaseKramer v Morris
- CaseMcCade v Chandler
- CaseRichards v Binnekamp
- CaseScuteri v Fuss
- CasePolice v Berry
- CasePolice v Varma
Key principles on trifling and “other proper cause”
The cases below can be grouped into a set of working principles for applications under section 98B and similar provisions.
- Proper cause is concerned with the circumstances of the offence, not the offender’s hardship. Loss of employment or general inconvenience will rarely, if ever, justify a reduction (Holness, Gazepis, Miles, Svilans, Spooner, Dycer).
- Trifling has its ordinary meaning of slight or insignificant. A normal or typical example of the offence will not be trifling, even if the objective seriousness is at the lower end (Siviour-Ashman, Hughes, Roberts, Savage).
- Factors relevant to trifling include the extent of the conduct, the degree of departure from the required standard, whether there was an emergency or pressing circumstance, and whether the offending was deliberate or inadvertent (Hughes, Gilbert, Hepworth, Chan).
- Mechanical irregularities or external features that explain the conduct, such as a faulty speedometer or misleading signage, can amount to proper cause where they show the offence is not the usual example (Shillabeer, Di Fava).
- Parliament intended section 98B to focus on the nature of the offence and its departure from the typical case, rather than the personal consequences of disqualification (Kramer, McCade, Holness, Dycer).
- Proper cause is distinct from trifling and may exist in cases that are not trivial, but the circumstances must still be sufficiently unusual or out of the ordinary to justify a departure from the prescribed points (Miles, Muto-Henderson, Scuteri).
- The assessment of trifling or proper cause is an evaluative judgment and there are no closed categories, but the authorities strongly discourage using the discretion to soften the routine consequences of standard traffic offending (Gilbert, Newton, Spooner, Carbone, Dean).
| Case | Key Principle | Pinpoint | Citation / URL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apostolakos v Police | “Proper cause” is distinct from trifling conduct and must be something out of the ordinary in the circumstances of the offending. Personal hardship or employment consequences are not relevant. | [2017] SASC 90 | Apostolakos v Police [2017] SASC 90 |
| Bialobrezeski v Police | Even if personal circumstances are taken into account, there is no error where the magistrate concludes that proper cause has not been made out on facts that are typical for the offence. | [2016] SASC 99 | Bialobrezeski v Police [2016] SASC 99 |
| Black v Police | Discusses when demerit points may be reduced and confirms that the existence of proper cause is an evaluative judgment guided by earlier authorities. | [2013] SASC 115 | Black v Police [2013] SASC 115 |
| Carbone v Police | No proper cause is shown where the speeding is a usual example of the offence and nothing in the circumstances distinguishes it from typical cases. | [2016] SASC 131 | Carbone v Police [2016] SASC 131 |
| Chan v Police | Follows Holness and holds that proper cause is confined to the circumstances of the offence. Categories are not closed, but there must be features that take the offending outside the normal case. | [2014] SASC 35 | Chan v Police [2014] SASC 35 |
| Dean v Police | Confirms that proper cause and trifling must be assessed by reference to the circumstances of the offending, not hardship, and that ordinary speeding will rarely qualify. | [2008] SASC 55 | Dean v Police [2008] SASC 55 |
| Gazepis v Police | Hardship arising from the recording of demerit points or disqualification is not of itself proper cause. The focus remains on the nature and circumstances of the offence. | 70 SASR 121 | 70 SASR 121 |
| Police v Di Fava | Further evidence may be received on appeal where it changes the factual setting of the offence. A mistaken but reasonable assumption about signage can amount to proper cause to reduce points. | [2017] SASC 189 | Police v Di Fava [2017] SASC 189 |
| Gilbert v Owen | “Other proper cause” relates to the circumstances of the offence, not the offender, and must distinguish the conduct from more serious or typical breaches so that it can be seen in practical terms as a lesser example. | [1991] SASC 3059; 14 MVR 235 | Gilbert v Owen [1991] SASC 3059; 14 MVR 235 |
| Hepworth v Rowbottom | Early authority emphasising that proper cause is concerned with the circumstances of the conduct and its departure from typical offending, not with hardship or personal impact. | 22 SASR 394 | 22 SASR 394 |
| Heyne v Police | The power to reduce demerit points is confined to cases that are trifling or where there is other proper cause, and that power is limited to the circumstances of the offence. | [2019] SASC 52 | Heyne v Police [2019] SASC 52 |
| Holness v Police | Proper cause is limited to the circumstances of the offence. Personal hardship, including threatened loss of employment, is not relevant to the discretion under section 98B. | [2010] SASC 314 | Holness v Police [2010] SASC 314 |
| House v The King | Sets out the familiar grounds on which an appellate court may intervene in a discretionary decision, applied routinely in appeals concerning proper cause and trifling. | 55 CLR 499 | House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 |
| Markarian v R | General guidance on structured discretion in sentencing, often cited for the correct approach to evaluative functions, including assessment of proper cause. | 228 CLR 357 | Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357 |
| Miles v Police | Proper cause is something different from a trifling offence and need not be as minor, but it must still be sufficiently out of the ordinary to justify a reduction. Licence hardship will rarely suffice. | [2012] SASC 69 | Miles v Police [2012] SASC 69 |
| Muto-Henderson v Police | Confirms that proper cause under section 98B relates to the circumstances of the offence rather than the offender and must distinguish the offending from more serious or typical breaches. | [2017] SASC 139 | Muto-Henderson v Police [2017] SASC 139 |
| Newton v Larcombe | Proper cause is a cause associated with the circumstances of the particular offence. An offence is either trifling, or there is some other proper cause within those circumstances. | [2008] SASC 43 | Newton v Larcombe [2008] SASC 43 |
| Police v Federuzzi | Discusses proper cause and its application to traffic offending, reinforcing the focus on the nature and seriousness of the conduct. | [2008] SASC 104 | Police v Federuzzi [2008] SASC 104 |
| Police v Hughes | Sets out the main factors for deciding whether an offence is trifling, including the extent of the conduct, the degree of departure from the required standard, the presence of emergency circumstances and whether the offending was deliberate or inadvertent. | [2009] SASC 57; 89 A Crim R 290 | Police v Hughes [2009] SASC 57; 89 A Crim R 290 |
| Police v Spooner | The preponderance of authority confines other proper cause to the circumstances of the offending and not to the impacts that the accumulation of points has on the offender. | [2015] SASC 196 | Police v Spooner [2015] SASC 196 |
| Savage v Police | Momentary use of a mobile telephone to check the time while driving is still a normal example of the offence and does not by itself provide proper cause to reduce demerit points. | [2011] SASC 13 | Savage v Police [2011] SASC 13 |
| Shillabeer v Linnane | Hardship from loss of licence is not itself proper cause, but a mechanical irregularity such as a faulty speedometer can justify relief where it explains the offending. | (1979) 22 SASR 382 | Shillabeer v Linnane (1979) 22 SASR 382 |
| Siviour-Ashman v Police | Detailed analysis of trifling and proper cause. Typical examples of an offence will not be trifling; a deliberate breach will seldom qualify, and the objective circumstances carry more weight than the offender’s belief. | [2003] SASC 29; 85 SASR 23 | Siviour-Ashman v Police [2003] SASC 29; 85 SASR 23 |
| Svilans v Police | Declined to follow Miles on hardship and adopted the approach in Holness and Chan that proper cause is determined by the circumstances of the offending, not personal hardship. | [2014] SASC 173 | Svilans v Police [2014] SASC 173 |
| Whittwer v Police | Considers proper cause in the context of traffic offending and reinforces that the discretion is directed to the nature and seriousness of the offence. | [2004] SASC 226 | Whittwer v Police [2004] SASC 226 |
Other proper cause and supporting authorities
Additional decisions on trifling and proper cause, including authorities that explain the legislative history and the limits of hardship based arguments.
| Case | Principle / relevance | Pinpoint | Citation / URL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roberts v Police | Trifling is a factual characterisation with its ordinary meaning of slight or insignificant. The fact that an offence is classified as serious does not prevent a finding that, on particular facts, it is trifling, but typical examples are not. | [2013] SASC 190 | Roberts v Police [2013] SASC 190 |
| Dycer v Police | Stop sign offence. Hardship from disqualification was rejected as proper cause. Draws on Gilbert and McCade and confirms that proper cause concerns the offending circumstances, not licence hardship. | [2010] SASC 241 | Dycer v Police [2010] SASC 241 |
| Hughes v Police | Further application of the Hughes factors in a different factual setting, reinforcing that trifling and proper cause are to be assessed by reference to the circumstances of the offence rather than hardship. | [2012] SASC 183 | Hughes v Police [2012] SASC 183 |
| Kramer v Morris | Important in the legislative history. Emphasises that Parliament directed attention to the nature of the offence and that the applicant must show the conduct is not the typical example contemplated by the statute. | [1975] SASC 2446 | Kramer v Morris [1975] SASC 2446 |
| McCade v Chandler | Discusses other proper cause in a traffic lights context and the requirement that the circumstances distinguish the offence from the usual run of cases. | 37 SASR 477 | 37 SASR 477 |
| Richards v Binnekamp | Failure to comply with a route marking was described as little more than technical where traffic was very light and there was no real risk or embarrassment to others, illustrating the type of conduct that may be viewed as trifling. | Citation not set out here | Richards v Binnekamp |
| Scuteri v Fuss (No 583 of 1987) | Observes that any other proper cause may be something more serious than a trifling matter, provided the circumstances remain sufficiently unusual or atypical to justify relief. | [1987] SASC 9944; No 583 of 1987 | Scuteri v Fuss [1987] SASC 9944 (No 583 of 1987) |
| Police v Berry | Applies Siviour-Ashman. The defendant’s belief as to blood alcohol level was given little weight where the reading was well above the limit, reinforcing the emphasis on objective circumstances when assessing trifling. | [2014] SASC 33 | Police v Berry [2014] SASC 33 |
| Police v Varma | Interprets the term “convicts” in a different statutory context. Cited in Heyne for the view that licence consequences can follow even where a conviction is not formally recorded, once guilt has been admitted. | [2013] SASCFC 72 | Police v Varma [2013] SASCFC 72 |
Need help turning these authorities into a winning submission? Book a free 30-minute consultation and we can assess whether a trifling or “other proper cause” argument is open on your facts.
Detailed case notes
For lawyers and serious researchers, the case notes below summarise how each authority was decided and how the tests for trifling and other proper cause were applied in practice.
Apostolakos v Police [2017] SASC 90
The appellant briefly checked the Bluetooth function on his phone while stopped at traffic lights and relied on hardship flowing from the points. The court held that proper cause must be found in the circumstances of the offending itself, not in hardship, and dismissed the appeal.
Bialobrezeski v Police [2016] SASC 99
A speeding offence with sun glare and work related hardship. The conduct was treated as a typical example of the offence and neither trifling nor proper cause was shown, even if personal circumstances were taken at their highest.
Black v Police [2013] SASC 115
Considered how the discretion is to be exercised in the demerit context and applied House v The King principles to review a magistrate’s decision. The case underlines that proper cause is an evaluative conclusion reached on the facts.
Carbone v Police [2016] SASC 131
The appellant exceeded the limit by between 20 and 30 kilometres per hour and relied on employment hardship. The court held that the offending was not trifling and that there was no proper cause to reduce points where the conduct was an ordinary example of mid range speeding.
Chan v Police [2014] SASC 35
Mobile phone use while stopped at lights. The appeal succeeded because the magistrate failed to hear evidence before refusing to reduce points. The reasons emphasise that proper cause is still confined to the circumstances of the offence and that even brief or atypical uses must be assessed against the purpose of the rule.
Dean v Police [2008] SASC 55
Low range speeding with employment hardship. The court affirmed that the question under section 98B is whether the offence is trifling or there is proper cause within the circumstances of the conduct, and that ordinary speeding with common hardship will not suffice.
Gazepis v Police 70 SASR 121
Another speeding case in which the appellant relied on loss of licence for work. The court rejected hardship as a basis for proper cause and treated the offence as a normal example of its type, reinforcing the focus on the conduct rather than its consequences.
Police v Di Fava [2017] SASC 189
The appellant drove past a no entry sign having confused the intersection with a nearby layout. Additional evidence was admitted on appeal and, in light of the clarified facts, the court treated the mistake about signage as sufficient proper cause to reduce the points.
Gilbert v Owen [1991] SASC 3059; 14 MVR 235
Key early authority on other proper cause. The court held that proper cause must relate to the circumstances of the offence, that personal hardship is irrelevant, and that the conduct must be distinguishable from more serious or typical breaches so that it is, in practical terms, a lesser instance.
Hepworth v Rowbottom 22 SASR 394
Reinforces the approach in Gilbert and guides later decisions on how to characterise offending as atypical or less serious. The reasoning has been picked up in a number of later traffic cases.
Heyne v Police [2019] SASC 52
Two camera detected speeding offences where the appellant could not say who was driving. The court held that identification difficulties were irrelevant to trifling and proper cause, and that the power to reduce points is fixed on the circumstances of the offence rather than evidentiary or personal matters.
Holness v Police [2010] SASC 314
Seatbelt offending by a truck driver who faced loss of employment. Reviewing the legislative history, the court confirmed that Parliament directed attention to the nature of the offence and that personal hardship is not relevant to other proper cause.
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Sets out when an appellate court may intervene in the exercise of a discretion, including where the court has acted on a wrong principle, mistaken the facts, taken into account irrelevant matters, or where the result is plainly unjust.
Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357
High Court authority on structured discretion that is often cited when explaining how judges should move from principle to outcome in sentencing and related evaluative tasks.
Miles v Police [2012] SASC 69
Recognises that proper cause may be something less minor than trifling but still requires circumstances that are sufficiently out of the ordinary. Loss of licence and its usual hardships are treated as common incidents of offending and rarely enough by themselves.
Muto-Henderson v Police [2017] SASC 139
Explains that proper cause under section 98B must be found in the circumstances of the offence, and must show that the breach is a lesser example of the kind of conduct that the section contemplates.
Newton v Larcombe [2008] SASC 43
Describes proper cause as a cause linked to the circumstances of the particular offence. Either the offence is trifling or some other proper cause exists within those circumstances, but there is no third category based on personal hardship alone.
Police v Federuzzi [2008] SASC 104
Considers proper cause in the context of traffic offending and keeps the analysis aligned with Gilbert and Holness, focusing on the objective features of the conduct.
Police v Hughes [2009] SASC 57; 89 A Crim R 290
Identifies the commonly cited factors for deciding whether an offence is trifling, including extent, degree of departure, emergency circumstances and whether the conduct was deliberate or inadvertent, with reduced weight for inadvertence in Road Traffic Act matters because safety is central.
Hughes v Police [2012] SASC 183
Applies the Hughes factors in a different factual context and confirms that both trifling and other proper cause must be assessed by reference to the objective circumstances of the offence, rather than the hardship that would flow from disqualification.
Police v Spooner [2015] SASC 196
Draws together the authorities and states that other proper cause is confined to the circumstances of the offending. Impacts on the offender from disqualification or point accumulation are generally outside the concept.
Savage v Police [2011] SASC 13
Short use of a mobile telephone to check the time while driving was argued to be a very minor example of the offence. The court accepted it was at the lower end but held that it remained a normal instance of rule 300 offending and did not amount to trifling or proper cause.
Shillabeer v Linnane (1979) 22 SASR 382
Confirms that hardship from disqualification is not a proper reason to reduce points, but recognises that a mechanical problem such as a faulty speedometer, where it explains the conduct, may support relief.
Siviour-Ashman v Police [2003] SASC 29; 85 SASR 23
Unique drink driving facts involving unexpected extra alcohol in a fruit drink. The offence was still held not to be trifling. The decision is often cited for the proposition that typical examples are not trifling and that the defendant’s belief carries less weight than the objective circumstances.
Svilans v Police [2014] SASC 173
Speeding matter where the appellant argued personal hardship. The court aligned with Holness and Chan in holding that proper cause is governed by the offending circumstances. The reasons also revisit the Hughes factors for trifling.
Whittwer v Police [2004] SASC 226
Considers proper cause in the context of traffic offending and reinforces the central theme that the discretion relates to the character of the offence rather than the consequences for the offender.
Roberts v Police [2013] SASC 190
Clarifies that trifling is a factual label carrying its ordinary meaning. The case explains that even serious categories of offending may be trifling on very particular facts, but that ordinary or typical examples will not qualify.
Dycer v Police [2010] SASC 241
Stop sign contravention where the appellant relied on business related hardship. The court rejected hardship and held that proper cause must be found in the nature of the offence, drawing on Gilbert and McCade.
Kramer v Morris [1975] SASC 2446
Important for the legislative history that informs section 98B. The reasoning directs attention to whether the offence is the ordinary example that Parliament had in mind, rather than to the effect of disqualification on the individual.
McCade v Chandler 37 SASR 477
Traffic lights case where the court discussed other proper cause and the need for the circumstances to distinguish the offender’s conduct from routine breaches of the provision.
Richards v Binnekamp
Failure to follow a route marking was described as little more than technical in very light traffic with no danger or embarrassment to others. Often cited as an illustration of conduct that can properly be described as trifling.
Scuteri v Fuss [1987] SASC 9944 (No 583 of 1987)
Notes that any other proper cause may involve conduct that is more serious than a trifling matter, but still atypical in a way that justifies relief from the prescribed points.
Police v Berry [2014] SASC 33
The court applied Siviour-Ashman to a high range drink driving matter and held that the defendant’s belief about his reading carried little weight when assessing trifling. The focus remained on the objective seriousness of driving at more than twice the legal limit.
Police v Varma [2013] SASCFC 72
Interprets the word “convicts” in section 47 of the Road Traffic Act and is cited in Heyne for the proposition that licence consequences can follow from a finding of guilt or a plea, even where a formal conviction is not recorded.
How We Help You Keep Your Licence
- Early research and instructions. Decide whether to pursue trifling, other proper cause, or both, and frame the facts accordingly.
- Build the record. Photographs of the scene (traffic density, sightlines), GIS or meteorological data, OSINT, time-stamped maps, expert reports, weather and sunlight angle glare data, vehicle logs, mechanical reports, device calibration, and sworn witness statements.
- Characterise the conduct accurately. Show why the conduct is atypical of the offence class, or why a specific irregularity distinguishes it from typical breaches.
- Address safety and proportionality. Explain why the conduct created minimal risk, was fleeting or technical, and did not embarrass or endanger other road users.
- Be candid on hardship. Note that hardship alone is generally irrelevant; only use it to explain context if tied to the offence facts (and even then, cautiously).
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a trifling offence in South Australia?
A trifling offence is one where the circumstances are of slight importance, insignificant, or atypical when compared with the usual examples of that offence. Courts look at the extent of the conduct, whether it was inadvertent or momentary, and whether the situation involved something unusual, exceptional, or urgent.
What counts as “other proper cause” to reduce demerit points?
Other proper cause refers to circumstances of the offence that are not trifling, but still sufficiently out of the ordinary to justify a reduction in points. It does not include personal hardship such as job loss or inconvenience. The focus is entirely on the specific facts of the offending.
Can I reduce demerit points in SA because I will lose my job?
Usually no. Hardship to the offender is not relevant under section 98B. The Court’s discretion is focused on the nature of the offence itself. Loss of employment or inconvenience does not amount to trifling or proper cause. However, it is relevant in the event of a provisional licence appeal or breach of probationary licence conditions.
What evidence helps show a trifling or proper cause case?
Photos of the scene, traffic conditions, weather and sunlight angle data, expert mechanical reports, speedometer testing, witness statements, and any evidence that proves the conduct was inadvertent, exceptional, or influenced by atypical conditions.
Are mechanical faults proper cause?
Yes, but only if supported by reliable evidence. A faulty speedometer, misleading signage or road marking, or another irregularity can support a finding of proper cause if it explains why the offence was not a typical example.
Do trifling applications apply to all traffic offences in SA?
They apply wherever section 98B(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) is engaged, typically after a guilty plea. The same principles also inform “no conviction” applications under section 23 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA).
Who is the best type of lawyer to prepare a trifling or proper cause application?
A lawyer familiar with traffic jurisprudence, demerit point legislation, and the South Australian appellate authorities. Successful applications require disciplined fact analysis, precise submissions, and structured evidence.
Traffic Lawyer Consultation to Reduce Demerit Points
If you are considering an application to reduce demerit points on the basis of trifling or other proper cause, early advice is critical. Talon Legal prepares applications with disciplined evidence and clear submissions grounded in South Australian authority.
- Call: (08) 7094 2021
- Book online: Free 30-minute consultation
- Related service: Traffic Lawyers — Adelaide & SA
Related Traffic Law Links
- Traffic Lawyers - Adelaide & South Australia
- Demerit Point Disqualification – SA Guide
- Drivers Licence Appeals in the Magistrates Court
- Driving Unlicensed, Suspended or Disqualified
- Alcohol Driving Offences - SA Penalties & Defences
- Drink Driving Charges in South Australia
- Drug Driving Offences SA Guide
- Reckless and Dangerous Driving
- Drivers Licence Offences
- Driving Without Due Care
