Our solicitor Mr Elbob made an appearance on behalf of a male in his thirties at the Melbourne Magistrates Court for charges of driving whilst disqualified. The Accused had a number of significant priors before the Court, most notably for repeatedly driving whilst suspended and excessive speed. The maximum penalties for these charges included up to two years imprisonment.
Victoria Police also filed an application for vehicle forfeiture which was to be considered by the Court.
The accused accepted responsibility for his offending and instructed Mr Elbob to enter a plea of guilty to the charges before the Court.
Prior to the matter coming before the Court, Mr Elbob of our office advised the Accused that he was a significant risk of being sentenced to a term of imprisonment as a result of repeat offending over a short period of time and stressed the need for significant material in preparation for the plea of guilty. Mr Elbob encouraged the Accused to complete the Road Trauma Awareness Seminar, to obtain reference material from close friends and to provide our office with a letter of reliance from his wife in relation to his reliance on the vehicle which was subject to the police application for forfeiture.
When the matter proceeded before the Court, Mr Elbob highlighted to the Court the steps he had taken since his offending. In response to the submissions made by Mr Elbob, the Court was agreeable to sentencing the accused to a financial penalty.
Following the sentencing of the matter, the Court heard the application filed by Victoria Police for vehicle forfeiture. The vehicle was valued at a market value of $40,000.00 and Mr Elbob relied on evidence from the accused’s wife in relation to her reliance on the vehicle. During the hearing of the application, Mr Elbob made submissions on behalf of the accused , namely that forfeiting the vehicle would cause significant hardship to his wife and the vehicle was the only asset of significant worth to the relationship. Mr Elbob called the accused’s wife to give evidence before the Court in relation to her reliance on the vehicle and the impact that losing the vehicle would have on her family. In response to these submissions, the Court agreed and refused the Application for forfeiture and also did not make any further order for impoundment.
This matter shows that it is worthwhile investing in quality representation from the start to ensure the best outcome is achieved.
