27 Licence Offences: Community Correction Order, No Jail

Result at a glance

• Charges: 19 offences of driving while a licence application was refused and 8 offences of driving while disqualified (s54 Road Transport Act 2013), with prior offences, plus loss of traction, negligent driving, failing to give particulars, a responsible-person offence, and further traffic matters.
• The risk: Full-time custody.
• Court: Local Court (NSW).
• Outcome: Community correction order. No full-time custody.

The charge position

Our client faced a large number of traffic offences: 19 offences of driving while a licence application was refused, 8 offences of driving while disqualified, prolonging or increasing loss of traction, negligent driving with no death or grievous bodily harm, failing to give particulars to the owner of damaged property, a responsible-person offence, and other matters including speeding, speeding in a school zone, and disobeying a left turn. This was not a single driving mistake. It was a sentence for repeated offending across a long traffic history, and our client already had a record involving driving while disqualified, cancelled or refused. The main issue was whether he would be sent to full-time custody. The Court imposed a community correction order, a supervised order served in the community in place of prison.

Why jail was a real risk

Most criminal and traffic lawyers will advise that by a person's third drive-while-disqualified offence, jail is a real risk. Our client was well beyond that point, with 8 drive-while-disqualified offences and 19 drive-while-licence-refused offences, both categories involving prior offences. The maximum penalty for a second or subsequent offence under s54 of the Road Transport Act 2013 can include 12 months imprisonment. The Court was not dealing with a person who drove once while suspended and then corrected their behaviour. It was dealing with repeated licence offending alongside other road matters, so general deterrence and community safety were always going to be important. The Court had to consider whether previous fines, disqualifications and court orders had failed to stop the driving. That is why full-time custody had to be addressed directly.

The other road offences

The additional offences also mattered. The loss-of-traction charge under s116(2)(b) deals with conduct that prolongs or increases a vehicle's loss of traction; a first offence carries 30 penalty units, and a second or subsequent offence can also carry imprisonment. The negligent driving charge under s117(1)(c) carried a maximum of 10 penalty units, because there was no death or grievous bodily harm. The failure to give particulars under r287 of the Road Rules 2014 carried 20 penalty units, as did the responsible-person offence under s177 of the Road Transport Act 2013. Individually, some of these were less serious than the licence offences. Together, they added to the sentencing picture.

The sentencing principles

The Court had to apply the usual sentencing purposes. Under s3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, sentencing involves punishment, deterrence, community protection, rehabilitation, accountability, denunciation and recognising harm to the community. For repeat traffic offending, deterrence is often given real weight: the Court has to send a clear message that a person cannot keep driving while disqualified or refused, and it has to protect the community from drivers who repeatedly ignore licence restrictions. But sentencing is not only about the record. The Court also has to sentence the person before it, which means considering personal history, the reasons for the offending, prospects of rehabilitation, and whether a supervised community order can do the work required.

The Bugmy material

Our client had a seriously disadvantaged upbringing in Sierra Leone. That background was not raised to excuse the offending. It was raised to explain part of the pathway that led to repeated contact with the criminal justice system, and to support a sentence focused on supervision and rehabilitation. This is commonly called Bugmy material. Bugmy v The Queen is the High Court authority on the relevance of a deprived background in sentencing. The principle is not limited to Aboriginal offenders: a deprived background may reduce moral culpability or help explain offending where the evidence supports the connection, and it can remain relevant despite repeated offending. The point is narrow. A difficult background does not wipe away a driving record or guarantee a community-based outcome, but it can help the Court understand why the offending occurred and why rehabilitation in the community may still be a proper option.

How the sentence was approached

The submissions had to accept the obvious problem. The traffic record was serious, the number of drive-while-disqualified and licence-refused offences was high, and full-time custody was a live risk. The submissions therefore focused on why a community correction order could still meet the purposes of sentencing. A community correction order is made under s8 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. It is a sentence imposed after conviction, instead of imprisonment, and it can include supervision, community service, treatment conditions, non-association conditions and place restrictions. That made it a practical option: the Court could impose consequences, structure and supervision without sending our client to prison.

The result

The Court imposed a community correction order, so our client avoided full-time custody. The order still carried consequences. It is a conviction-based sentence, it requires compliance, and a breach can bring the person back before the Court. But the practical result was clear: despite 27 licence-related offences, other traffic charges, and a record that made jail a real risk, our client was not sent to prison. The result came from persuading the Court that a community correction order could meet the purposes of sentence in this particular case, not from asking the Court to overlook the record.

What this case shows

Repeat driving offences can move into jail territory quickly. Driving while disqualified and driving after a licence refusal are not just administrative matters: once there are prior offences, imprisonment becomes available, and the risk increases as the record builds. By the third drive-while-disqualified offence, most lawyers will warn that jail is genuinely on the table. This case also shows why sentence material matters. Where there are Bugmy features, they need to be properly prepared and clearly connected to the offending, rehabilitation and the purposes of sentence. A difficult background will not produce a community correction order by itself. The outcome depends on the number of offences, the record, the reasons for driving, the risk to the community, the evidence of rehabilitation, and the quality of the material.

Facing repeat licence charges?

By the third drive-while-disqualified offence, jail is a genuine risk, and the difference often comes down to how the sentence material is prepared. If you're facing repeat licence charges anywhere in Sydney, call JBP Law on 1800 527 529 or book a case review. We're based in Parramatta and appear in courts across Sydney and NSW.

This case study is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Each criminal matter depends on its own facts, evidence, and personal circumstances. Past outcomes are not indicative of future results.