Queensland’s road toll is a stark reminder that the journey towards safer roads is far from over. In a courtroom south of Brisbane, one magistrate is attempting a novel approach, hoping that a powerful combination of confronting video footage and stark statistics can finally make a difference.
A Harrowing Reality Check
The atmosphere in Cleveland Magistrates Court is often heavy, especially on a Monday morning during the traffic call-over. It’s here that individuals facing charges related to driving offences – from drink and drug driving to dangerous driving and hooning – are processed. Magistrate Deborah Vasta, however, takes a path less travelled in her sentencing.
Before diving into the specifics of each case, she addresses the gallery, which often includes the families and friends of those appearing before the court. “Ladies and gentlemen, if you’re here on a Monday morning … we call it the traffic call-over … so you’re normally here for something to do with cars,” she explains. “Usually drink driving, drug driving, maybe dangerous driving, hooning, driving without a licence.” She then reveals her intention: instead of a standard lecture, a five-minute video is played. This isn’t just any video; it depicts graphic, albeit staged, car accidents, complete with the sounds of impact and distress.
Before the lights dim and the video begins, Magistrate Vasta offers a crucial warning. Those who feel the content might be re-traumatising are given the option to leave. This empathetic gesture underscores the gravity of the message she aims to convey. Once the video concludes and the lights return, the courtroom transforms momentarily into a stark classroom. Magistrate Vasta then presents the latest road toll statistics for Queensland, a sobering counterpoint to the visual drama that just unfolded.
The Grim Numbers
The statistics are, without a doubt, harrowing. By a particular Monday in May, 111 lives had already been tragically lost on Queensland’s roads since the start of the year. This figure represents a significant increase of 24 deaths compared to the same period in the previous year.
Magistrate Vasta is particularly keen to highlight the fatalities involving motorcyclists. “Twenty-nine people have died on motorbikes,” she states, her voice carrying the weight of concern. She points out that one of the defendants who had stood in that very spot had been killed on a motorbike just the week prior. “All of these are preventable … speed, distraction, drugs, alcohol, seatbelts, etc.” she reminds the court. Her pointed question lingers in the air: “Who are the four or five people walking around right now who are going to be ticked off as just a statistic this time next week?”
The Courtroom Churn
The traffic court is a hive of activity, with over 20 individuals scheduled to appear throughout the day. For many, the appearance is to secure adjournments, while others will face sentencing. The emotional spectrum on display is broad, from apparent nonchalance to visible stress.
Among the more serious cases heard is that of a 22-year-old who pleaded guilty to multiple dangerous driving charges stemming from hooning incidents two years prior. Footage of these events, showing large crowds gathered in car parks under the cover of darkness to witness a ute performing burnouts, is presented to the court. Despite the police prosecutor’s push for jail time, the young man receives 200 hours of community service and a wholly suspended prison sentence. His licence is also suspended for three and a half years. As his family and a friend offer support from the public gallery, he is sternly warned, “everybody in the community is sick to death of seeing hooners.”
Over the hours, the court navigates through a range of cases, including drink driving, drug driving, and driving without a licence. Some matters are resolved swiftly with fines, allowing individuals to depart. Others, particularly drink driving offences, result in licence disqualifications, a consequence Magistrate Vasta is quick to emphasise. “Even if I only disqualify you for one month and you’re very good for three weeks and six days and 10 hours, and it’s the very last day — it’s too bad, we don’t get a choice about it — it’s mandatory that we disqualify you for two years,” she explains, highlighting the strict legal framework.
The circumstances of each defendant vary. A woman in her 50s, with no prior criminal history, returned a blood alcohol reading of 0.298 following a serious car accident on a Saturday afternoon. The prosecutor noted it was fortunate no one was killed. She receives a probation order and a six-month driving suspension.
In another case, a man pleads guilty to driving with cannabis in his system, explaining he is a medicinal user. He receives a one-month driving suspension. Similarly, another man with a medicinal cannabis prescription for cannabis in his system is disqualified for a month but granted a work licence to maintain his employment. A $2,000 fine is handed down to another man for drink driving, with a two-month work licence issued while his licence is suspended. No conviction is recorded for this offence, but he is warned of the far more severe consequences had his blood alcohol reading been even slightly higher.
The “Bread and Butter” of the Courts
Professor David Heilpern, former magistrate and now Dean of Law at Southern Cross University, is well acquainted with the constant stream of traffic matters. He describes these cases as the “bread and butter” of local courts, representing the majority of public interactions with the judicial system.
Professor Heilpern acknowledges that the primary goals of court appearances in these matters are appropriate punishment and deterrence. This includes the “embarrassment, the public shaming, the time off work, [and] the expenditure on legal fees.” He believes these consequences have a more significant impact in reducing future reoffending.
While recognising the challenge of managing the sheer volume of traffic cases, Professor Heilpern stresses the importance of remembering that for each defendant, their court appearance is the most significant event in their life. He views Magistrate Vasta’s approach in Cleveland as potentially meritorious, but cautions that its effectiveness is difficult to measure without formal evaluation.
“I’m old enough to remember that everyone thought that if you took young offenders into adult prisons and showed them how horrible it was, that it would stop their offending,” he recalls. “And it didn’t work.” He advocates for dedicated research to ascertain the true impact of such interventions, adding, “but it certainly can’t hurt, can it?” Professor Heilpern suggests that the state government should fund such evaluations, proposing a diversion of funds from expensive road safety initiatives.
The Elusive Data on Recidivism
A significant hurdle in understanding the effectiveness of interventions is the lack of readily available statistics on traffic offence recidivism in Queensland. Attempts to obtain this data proved challenging. The Queensland Police directed inquiries to the state’s justice department, which stated it does not hold “reportable recidivism data” for traffic offences. Similarly, the Department of Transport and Main Roads was unable to provide this information.
When contacted for comment, the state government reiterated its commitment to “making Queensland safer” by equipping courts and police with the necessary “tools and resources.” A spokesperson for Attorney-General Deb Frecklington stated, “We’re delivering more police to the frontline and refocusing policing on core duties, including road safety, so those who break the law on our roads can be held accountable.”
Professor Heilpern categorises offenders into two main groups based on his experience and research. “There are your first-time offenders who are not going to repeat … they’re mortified at their own actions,” he explains. These individuals, often experiencing a personal crisis or making a significant misjudgment, view their court appearance as a profound wake-up call and do not reoffend.
The second group comprises repeat offenders who grapple with underlying issues. These are the individuals who become ensnared in a cycle of accumulating fines and demerit points, driving while disqualified, and repeatedly entering and exiting the justice system. They are the ones who contribute to the continuous “churn” within courtrooms like Magistrate Vasta’s.
