Queensland’s road toll is climbing, and in a local court south of Brisbane, one magistrate is employing a confronting method to tackle the issue. Magistrate Deborah Vasta is using a graphic video depicting car accidents, coupled with stark statistics, in an attempt to shock offenders into changing their behaviour.
A Harrowing Reality Check
Inside the Cleveland Magistrates Court, the usual Monday morning traffic call-over takes on a different tone. Magistrate Vasta addresses the assembled individuals, many facing charges related to drink driving, drug driving, dangerous driving, hooning, or driving without a licence. She explains that part of her sentencing duty involves delivering a lecture. However, instead of a typical monologue, a five-minute video is played.
Before the playback begins, those in the public gallery are given the opportunity to leave if they believe the content might be re-traumatising. As the lights dim and the video starts, scenes of simulated car crashes unfold. The on-screen dialogue features a woman crying, “It was an accident,” followed by rapid-fire collisions and the distressing sound of a child screaming as a car strikes them. The stark reality of the consequences is laid bare as a body bag is zipped up. By the time the video concludes, tears are visible in the audience.
When the lights return, Magistrate Vasta presents the latest Queensland road toll statistics. The courtroom transforms into a makeshift classroom, the gravity of the numbers undeniable. As of a particular Monday in May, 111 lives had been lost on Queensland roads since the start of the year – a significant increase of 24 compared to the same period last year.
The Growing Toll
Magistrate Vasta highlights a particularly concerning statistic: 29 people have died on motorbikes. She makes a poignant connection, noting that a recent defendant, who had stood in the same place, was killed on a motorbike just the week prior. She stresses that all these fatalities are preventable, attributing them to factors like speed, distraction, drugs, alcohol, and the failure to wear seatbelts. Her words hang in the air, posing a chilling question to the offenders: “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 sits for extended periods, dealing with a constant stream of cases. This particular week, over 20 individuals are scheduled to appear. Some are present merely to seek adjournments, represented by their legal counsel, while others face immediate sentencing. The demeanour of those in court varies, with some appearing surprisingly relaxed despite the circumstances.
Among the more serious matters is the case of a 22-year-old who pleaded guilty to multiple counts of dangerous driving stemming from hooning incidents two years prior. Footage of the events, showing large groups gathered in a car park at night to witness a ute performing burnouts, is played. Despite the police prosecutor’s call for jail time, the young man receives 200 hours of community service and a wholly suspended prison sentence. He is sternly warned that “everybody in the community is sick to death of seeing hooners,” and his licence is suspended for three-and-a-half years. His mother, partner, and another supporter are present in the gallery, offering their support.
Over several hours, the court addresses numerous cases involving drink driving, drug driving, and driving without a licence. Some matters are resolved swiftly with fines, allowing individuals to depart quickly. Others, particularly those involving drink driving, result in both fines and licence disqualifications. Magistrate Vasta reiterates the mandatory nature of these disqualifications, even for short periods.
Varied Circumstances, Serious Consequences
The circumstances of the defendants vary widely. In one case, a woman in her 50s with no prior criminal history returns a blood alcohol reading of 0.298 after being involved in a serious car accident on a Saturday afternoon. The prosecutor notes it was fortunate no one was killed. The woman is placed on a probation order and receives a six-month driving suspension.
Another defendant pleads guilty to driving with a drug in his system, specifically cannabis. He claims to be a medicinal cannabis user, and consequently receives a one-month driving suspension. Similarly, another man admits to driving with cannabis in his system, also citing medicinal use. He is disqualified from driving for a month but is granted a work licence to facilitate his commute to and from his job.
A man fined $2,000 for drink driving, with a reading of 0.099, is issued a two-month work licence while his main licence is suspended. No conviction is recorded for this offence, but he is warned that a slightly higher reading would have led to far more serious repercussions.
The “Bread and Butter” of Local Courts
Professor David Heilpern, a former magistrate in New South Wales and now Dean of Law at Southern Cross University on the Gold Coast, is intimately familiar with the volume of traffic matters. He describes these cases as the “bread and butter” of local courts, constituting the majority of public interactions with the judicial system.
Professor Heilpern explains that the purpose of bringing offenders to court extends beyond mere punishment. It encompasses the “embarrassment, the public shaming, the time off work, [and] the expenditure on legal fees.” He believes these factors have a more significant, sobering impact and contribute to reducing future reoffending.
He acknowledges the challenge of not becoming desensitised to the sheer volume of traffic cases. However, he stresses the importance of remembering that for each defendant, their court appearance is the “biggest case… and the most important thing happening in their life.”
Professor Heilpern views Magistrate Vasta’s approach in Cleveland as potentially beneficial. However, he notes that its true impact is difficult to quantify without proper evaluation. He draws a parallel to past initiatives, such as exposing young offenders to adult prisons, which proved ineffective. “What we need is an evaluation to really assess whether it does work or not… but it certainly can’t hurt, can it?” he remarks. He suggests that the state government should fund such evaluations, potentially diverting resources from other road safety measures.
The Elusive Data on Recidivism
Obtaining statistics on the reoffending rates of individuals convicted of traffic offences in Queensland proved to be a difficult task. When approached, Queensland Police directed inquiries to the state’s justice department. However, the department stated that it does not maintain “reportable recidivism data” for traffic offences. Similarly, the Department of Transport and Main Roads was unable to provide such statistics.
The state government, when contacted, reaffirmed its commitment to “making Queensland safer” by equipping the courts and police with necessary “tools and resources.” A spokesperson for Attorney-General Deb Frecklington stated that the government is increasing frontline police presence and refocusing policing efforts on core duties, including road safety, to ensure accountability for those who break traffic laws.
Professor Heilpern categorises offenders into two main groups based on his experience and research. The first group comprises first-time offenders who are genuinely remorseful and unlikely to reoffend after experiencing the consequences of their actions, often triggered by a life crisis, misjudgment, or simply being caught. The second group consists of repeat offenders who have underlying issues, leading them to become trapped in a cycle of accumulating fines and demerit points, driving while disqualified, and frequenting correctional facilities. These are the individuals who contribute to the continuous flow of cases through courtrooms like Magistrate Vasta’s.
