• Home Case Studies Multiple Charges (5) drink drive, theft, careless drive and failing to wear a helmet

Multiple Charges (5) drink drive, theft, careless drive and failing to wear a helmet

multiple-charges-5-drink-drive-theft-careless-drive-and-failing-to-wear-a-helmet

The Court: Portland Magistrates’ Court
The date : 2026

The Charges:

  1. Road Safety Act, Section 49(1)(b) – drive a motor vehicle while more than the prescribed concentration of alcohol was present in his blood (Alleged reading 0.233)
  2. Road Safety Act, Section 49(1)(g) – within 3 hours after driving a motor vehicle, have a blood sample taken which indicated more than the prescribed concentration of alcohol was present in his blood (0.233)
  3. Road Safety Act, Section 49(1)(a) – drive a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor to such an extent to be incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle
  4. Crimes Act, Section 74 – stealing property
  5. Road Safety Act, Section 65 – careless driving
  6. Road Safety Road Rules, Rule 256(1) – failing to wear an approved bicycle helmet whilst operating an e-scooter
Possible penalties our client was facing:
Charge 1
  • A fine of $4070.20
Charge 2
  • A fine of $4070.20
Charge 3
  • A fine of $5087.75 or 12 months imprisonment
Charge 4
  • 10 years imprisonment
Charge 5
  • A fine of $2442.12
Charge 6
  • A fine of $2935.10
The Facts of the Case:

At 9.35pm, our client left a venue and it was alleged he located and stole an electric scooter, riding it without a helmet.

Police attended the scene where our client was located next to an electric scooter with injuries consistent with a collision.

Our client was unable to provide a sample of breath at the scene due to his injuries. At 10.10pm, our client underwent a blood sample which indicated a reading of 0.233 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The result:

We reviewed the brief and noted there was no direct observation of a crash and no proper identification of our client as the rider by the police. There were no fingerprints on the scooter indicating our client stole it.

There was also no CCTV footage despite it being available outside of the venue which our client left.

We recommended our client contest the charges. We negotiated with the prosecution to withdraw the charges. The prosecution agreed to withdraw all charges

Contact Us for Expert Advice

    Upload file-attachment
    PDF (Charge & Summons)

    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.


    Other Case Studies