Examples of court orders made in respect of HVNL offences.
New South Wales
|
22 July 2020 Corowa Local Court Defendant: Driver |
The defendant was charged with two counts of making false or misleading entries in work record. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders: Convictions recorded |
|
20 July 2020 Downing Centre Local Court Defendant: Company |
The defendant was charged with a Severe category over mass offence. The vehicle was overloaded by 25% on the tri-axle and the defendant had two prior convictions for similar matter in 2018 and 2019.
It was noted that while the maximum penalty had the defendant been an individual was $14,000.00 as it was a Corporation, the Court was entitled to impose a max fine of around $70,000.00, pursuant to s596 of the HVNL. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders: Conviction recorded |
|
15 July 2020 Forster Local Court Defendant: Company |
A Kenworth B-Double combination was directed to stop at the Jones Island Heavy Vehicle Checking Station on 19th February 2020. Tests were carried out and it was found that the speed limiter was set to 125.5 km/h – more than 25 per cent above the allowed threshold. The matter was heard in Forster Local Court on 15 July. The prosecution submitted that the offence was at the higher end of seriousness, as the company’s truck was able to travel at more than 25 per cent above the maximum speed limit, creating a real risk to public safety. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other orders: Convictions recorded |
Queensland
|
7 August 2020 Wynnum Magistrates Court Defendant: Company |
The defendant company was investigated as a result of a tip off through the Heavy Vehicle Confidential Reporting Line. The investigation revealed that the two main drivers for the company had committed a number of fatigue management offences driving between Wagga Wagga and Brisbane. The company breached its duty in the chain of responsibility as it failed to schedule trips in a way that enabled the drivers to comply with the HVNL. The company was fined and has since changed their practices, which allows its drivers to rest adequately during travel periods. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
|
|
7 August 2020 Wynnum Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
In November 2018 the defendant was employed to drive a B-double from Brisbane to Wagga Wagga to collect canola oil and return to the Port of Brisbane with the consignment. The defendant held Basic Fatigue Management accreditation and was authorised to drive for 14 hours a day, yet still had to have 7 continuous hours of rest. The driver falsified his work diary (s702(1)) to attempt to cover the fact that he was completing up to 20 hours of work in a single 24-hour period. In one instance he had as little as 1 ¾ hours of continuous rest. The company the driver was employed by was also successfully prosecuted under the HVNL Primary Duty legislation. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
|
|
7 August 2020 Wynnum Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
The defendant did not hold any accreditation which meant that he could drive for 12 hours a day, and was required to have at least 7 continuous hours of rest. The driver falsified his work diary to attempt to cover the fact that he could not, even theoretically, travel from Brisbane to Wagga Wagga in one day, even though the Company expected him to do so. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
|
|
2 April 2020 Proserpine Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
The defendant was intercepted on the Bruce Highway. There were discrepancies between his work diary and ANPR camera data. An investigation commenced and using GPS data and ANPR data it was determined that the driver had undertaken extensive falsification of his work diary. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other orders: Convictions recorded |
|
13 May 2019 Southport Magistrates Court Defendant: Director |
The steer axle of a heavy vehicle was loaded at 120% of the applicable mass limit and the drive axle was loaded at 118% of the limit. The director of the company was not aware of the mass limits that applied to the vehicle. The loading machinery used by the company had no weighing equipment attached. There was no formal training or induction process for new drivers. The company was charged and convicted under (repealed) extended liability provisions. |
Section/Act:
(Pre 01/10/2018 offences) Fine:
|
|
26 April 2019 Townsville Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
A prime mover was towing a trailer carrying a Hitachi wheel loader, empty pallets and tyres. A tyre fell from the trailer and crossed the road in front of an oncoming passenger bus. The prime mover had a tyre missing from the front axle and a split tyre on another axle. The vehicle’s windscreen was cracked, the rocker box and leaf springs needed maintenance, hydraulic fluid was leaking and there were worn brakes on the trailer. The mass on the tri-axle group was 26.7t which was 133% of the permitted mass limit (a severe risk breach). The vehicle did not have an “Oversize” sign. Inspection of the driver’s work diary revealed several occasions where the driver had exceeded maximum work hours or did not rest for the required minimum rest period as well as numerous instances where information was required to be recorded but had been omitted. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
|
|
15 April 2019 Cleveland Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
When inspected, the driver’s work diary showed that the driver had worked for 17½ hrs in a 24 hr period which is 5½ hrs more than the maximum (a critical risk breach). In the same period, the driver had only had 4¼hrs of continuous stationary rest, not the required period of 7 hrs (a critical risk breach). |
Section/Act:
Fine:
|
|
13 December 2018 Toowoomba Magistrates Court Defendant: Company |
A heavy vehicle combination transporting a scraper was the subject of a permit however the mass limit of the permit was breached and the vehicle was assessed at general mass limits. The mass on the quad axle group (dual tyres) of the trailer was 205% of the maximum mass limit (a severe risk breach). The mass on the tandem axle group of the trailer (dual tyres) was 114% of the maximum permitted mass (a substantial risk breach). |
Section/Act:
(Pre 01/10/2018 offence) October 18) Fine:
|
South Australia
|
Date 14 July 2021 Berri Magistrates Court Defendant: Operator |
A vehicle was observed travelling in Yamba. It was diagnostically tested. It was revealed that the engine control module/emission control system was tampered with through reprogramming. This resulted in a non-compliant emission control system. Specifically, the design rules and standards were not being complied with for the heavy vehicle. As a result of the inspection, a further 3 heavy vehicles belonging to the Defendant were inspected. It was also revealed that the engine control module/emission control system had been tampered with for these heavy vehicles. All 4 heavy vehicles were issued with major defect notices. The Defendant paid approximately $32,594 to qualified mechanics to rectify the major defects. This was to ensure the vehicles had compliant emission control systems. The Defendant had no relevant prior convictions. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other orders:
|
|
25 June 2021 Mount Gambier Magistrates Court Defendant type: Employee - Managing Director |
The defendant was charged with 1 count of having in his possession a device that is designed, or is adapted, to enable tampering with a speed limiter of a heavy vehicle; first time offender. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders:
|
|
25 June 2021 Elizabeth Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
The defendant was charged with 1 count of critical risk breach of over hours, one severe risk breach of over hours and 1 count of false or misleading entries; first time offender. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders:
|
|
30 November 2020 Ceduna Magistrates Court Defendant: Employee Driver |
The defendant was charged with 1 count of critical risk breach of over hours; first time offender. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders:
|
|
30 November 2020 Ceduna Magistrates Court Defendant: Employee Driver |
The defendant was charged with 1 count of false or misleading entries, 1 count of severe risk breach of over hours and 1 count of critical risk breach of insufficient rest; first time offender. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders:
|
|
27 November 2020 Elizabeth Magistrates Court Party in COR: Driver |
A driver was charged with seven counts of entering false or misleading information into his Work Diary over the period of about one month. He had regularly recorded that he was resting at a particular location in the Barossa Valley when he was undertaking work activity. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders:
|
|
25 September 2020 Elizabeth Magistrates Court Defendant: Employee Driver |
The defendant was charged with one count of not having a 24 hour continuous stationary rest in a 7 day period and one count of making false or misleading entry in work diary; one previous relevant offence of making false or misleading entry in work diary. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders:
|
|
Elizabeth Magistrates Court Defendant: Employee Driver |
The defendant was charged with four counts of working over hours in a 24 hour period; first time offender. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders:
|
|
6 July 2020 Port Augusta Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
The defendant was charged with multiple fatigue breaches. He plead guilty to all charges. Magistrate imposed a global penalty of $7,500 for 5 CRITICAL and 1 SUBSTANTIAL breach charges. It was noted the defendant would likely lose his licence as potentially over 20 demerit points would have automatically attached to the convictions. The defendant applied to have these demerit points reduced. The Magistrate agreed to this, noting that such a reduction can only occur in unusual circumstances and any decision to reduce demerit points must relate to the course of the offending itself, NOT to the personal circumstances of the defendant. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders:
|
|
13 May 2020 Port Adelaide Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
The defendant was charged with 5 counts of making false or misleading entries 325 HVNL and a count of provide false document 702 HVNL. The defendant had a number of prior convictions, three of which were similar to the conduct charged. The Prosecution submitted that an order of the court modifying his MC licence by precluding the driver driving a HV outside of 100km of his driver’s base will ensure he does not hold a duty of accurately filling out a work diary, thus avoiding further offending. Balancing that, he can still be gainfully employed working as a HV driver within the 100km for local freight. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders:
|
|
27 May 2019 Port Pirie Magistrates Court Defendant: Company |
An SA based company was transporting a tractor excavator combination on the back of a low loader trailer in a manner that did not comply with the Load Restraint Guide. The load was observed shifting and moving forward on the deck of the low loader as the vehicle braked. The company was charged with a permit offence in accordance with s 111 HVNL and it was a severe risk breach in accordance with s 114. The company pleaded guilty at the first possible opportunity and was given a 40% discount for their early guilty plea. The company was fined $10,000.00 plus fees and levy. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders: Conviction recorded |
|
5 March 2019 Port Adelaide Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
The Defendant was an employee driver with four previous convictions for critical breaches of work and rest hours. He committed Counts 1 to 3 in a two month period and committed Count 4 shortly afterwards. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders: Conviction recorded for all counts |
|
5 March 2019 Port Adelaide Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
The solo driver of a prime mover operating under BFM hours rested for less than the minimum 7 hours of continuous rest time in a 24 hr period. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders: Convictions recorded |
|
5 March 2019 Port Adelaide Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
The solo driver of a prime mover rested for less than the minimum 7 hours of continuous rest time in a 24 hr period and worked for more than the maximum period of 12 hours stated in the standard hours in a 24 hour period.
|
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders: Convictions recorded for all counts |
|
5 March 2019 Adelaide Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
In a 7 day period, a solo driver had not taken the required 24 hr continuous rest break, but had only taken 21 hrs and 45 minutes. In a 24 hr period, the driver had exceeded the permitted maximum of 12 hours, working for 13 hours and 45 minutes. The driver had previously been convicted of a loading offence but not of any fatigue offences. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders: Convictions recorded |
|
30 January 2019 Adelaide Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
A NSW licensed driver made false entries in his work diary, stating that he had been resting at a time when in fact he had been driving, loading or refuelling a vehicle. The driver had one prior similar offence from 2017 when he was fined $900. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders: Conviction recorded |
|
30 January 2019 Adelaide Magistrates Court Defendant: Operator |
The company arranged for a drop deck trailer to be attached to its prime mover and gave instructions about how to load the trailer. There were no weighing devices on the trailer and the load exceeded the legal limit – of 20 tonnes – by almost 6 tonnes. The company had no prior relevant convictions. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders: Conviction recorded |
|
3 December 2018 Ceduna Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
A solo driver operating under standard hours breached work and rest hours requirements by driving for 13 hours in a 24 hour period (substantial risk) and for resting only for 4.50 hours in a 24 hour period. (critical risk) When being previously convicted of similar offences he had been warned that further offending would result in licence disqualification. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders: Licence disqualified for 9 months. |
|
14 November 2018 Port Adelaide Magistrates Court Defendant: Company/owner |
An Adelaide based trucking company was prosecuted for two offences against s 229 of the HVNL (pre 1 October 2018 offending). An investigation into the company was commenced after one of its drivers was involved in a collision. The trucks operated by the company were fitted with GPS and GPS data was readily available to the company. The company failed to access the GPS data or cross-check GPS records with drivers’ work diaries. Had the company accessed the GPS data it would have been alerted to indications that two drivers were committing extreme breaches of the fatigue regulations of the HVNL. Section 229 does not require proof that a driver was in fact driving fatigued – it is simply a failure to take reasonable steps to ensure that a person does not drive on the road while impaired by fatigue. Thus in failing to cross-check GPS with work diaries for these two drivers – which would have been a reasonable step – the company committed two offences against s 229 of the HVNL. As the defendant was a company, the operation of s 596 meant that the maximum penalty for each of the two offences was $55,000 dollars (5 times the $11,000 maximum penalty for an s 229 offence). The Magistrate reduced the proposed a fine of $36,000 by 40% in recognition of the pleas of guilty on the first occasion the matter was in Court. This resulted in a global fine of $21,600 plus victims of crime levies and prosecutors fees. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders: Conviction recorded |
|
4 September 2018 Ceduna Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
A solo heavy vehicle driver was charged with one count of driving while fatigued. He had been observed driving on the wrong side of the road at various times over about a 10 minute period. His licence was disqualified as he posed a significant public risk. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders: Licence disqualified for 3 months. |
Victoria
|
25 June 2021 Colac Magistrates Court Defendant type: Permit - |
The defendant was charged with 1 count of failing to obtain a permit which resulted in a severe breach occurring in relation to the length of overhang on the Heavy Vehicle that was being driven under the companies direction; first time offender. |
Section/Act: C1 – s102 (1) (Severe)
Other Orders: No conviction recorded |
| 1 July 2021 Dandenong Magistrates Court Defendant: Company |
A company was observed travelling in a prime mover towing an extendable heavy trailer, which was loaded with a crane gantry beam. The vehicle was intercepted, and the load inspected. It was revealed that the vehicle was travelling over the prescribed dimension limits. The company did not have a permit for the return trip. Accordingly, the dimensions were assessed against the statutory limits. The allowed length was 19m. The length of the vehicle was 33.5m, an excess length of 14.5m. The allowed width was 2.5m. The width of the vehicle was 2.75m, an excess width of 250mm. A permit would have allowed for a length of 45m and a width of 3.5m. The vehicle was about to cross a railway just prior to the intercept. It was revealed that the company failed to obtain permission to cross the railway. There were a total of 2 pilot vehicles. One of the pilots was not a certified level 2 pilot vehicle driver. There needed to be a minimum of 3 certified pilot vehicles to be used. The company had no prior convictions. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
|
|
27 May 2021 Sunshine Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
A driver was intercepted driving a heavy vehicle. The load was inspected. It was revealed that the vehicle was travelling over the prescribed dimension limits. The permitted width was 2.5m and the measured width was 2.7m, an excess width of 200mm. Database checks revealed the Defendant was driving without a licence and an unregistered vehicle. The Defendant provided a false name, address and date of birth and eventually provided his real details. The Defendant had prior convictions for driving offences, however no priors for Heavy Vehicle National Law offences. |
Section/Act:
Other Orders:
|
|
13 May 2021 Werribee Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
A driver was intercepted driving a prime mover towing a low loader, which was loaded with a container. The vehicle was intercepted and the load inspected. It was revealed that the vehicle was travelling over the prescribed dimension limits. The vehicle permitted length was 19m. The vehicles length was measured at 20.3m, an excess length of 1.3m. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders:
|
|
13 May 2021 Werribee Magistrates Court Defendant: Company |
A company was observed travelling in a B-double combination, with 2x40-foot containers. The vehicle was intercepted, and the load inspected. It was revealed that the vehicle was travelling over the prescribed dimension limits and the prime mover was registered to the incorrect category. The vehicle permitted length was 26m. The vehicles length was measured at 28,9m, an excess length of 2.9m. The company had no prior convictions. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders:
|
|
13 May 2021 Werribee Magistrates Court Defendant: Company |
A company was observed travelling with 2 containers, a 20-foot and 40-foot container. The vehicle was intercepted, and the load inspected. It was revealed that the vehicle was travelling over the prescribed mass requirements. The vehicle was loaded at 150% of the applicable mass limit of the tri-axle. The company was also not carrying container weight declarations for the 2 containers. The company had no prior convictions. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders:
|
|
23 April 2021 Broadmeadows Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
A driver was intercepted driving a heavy vehicle, being a freightliner tow truck coupled to a refrigerated trailer. It was revealed that the vehicle had breached its mass and dimension requirements. The vehicle was loaded at 124% of the applicable mass limit of the tandem drive. The vehicles allowed length was 26m as the Defendant had a permit, however due to breaching the permit the length reverted to the statutory limit of 19m. The length of the vehicle was 29.06m, an excess length of 10.06m. The Defendant had prior driving matters, however had no priors for Heavy Vehicle National Law matters. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders:
|
|
20 April 2021 Broadmeadows Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
A driver was intercepted driving a heavy vehicle. It was revealed that the vehicle had breached its loading requirements and dimension requirements. The vehicle was loaded with a tautliner truck body and chassis and other metal items. The vehicle was only secured by a single 1x50mm strap, and the items on the tray of the truck were loose and completely unrestrained. It was also revealed that the vehicles dimension requirements were not complied with. The permitted width was 2.5m, with an excess width of 380mm. The permitted height was 4.3m, with an excess height of 270mm. The permitted rear overhang was 3.33m, with an excess rear overhang of 1,020mm. The Defendant had priors for minor risk dimension and loading offences against the Heavy Vehicle National Law |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders:
|
|
9 March 2021 Werribee Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
A driver was intercepted driving a skip bin truck. Database checks revealed that the Defendant’s licence was disqualified. An inspection of the vehicle was conducted. The vehicle was found to be in in an unsafe condition. Issues included the brake shoes being worn down to the rivets, front and rear spring shackle buses worn excessively, rear torque rod bushes non-existent and oil leaks to the control unit. The defendant had prior driving matters, however had no priors for Heavy Vehicle National Law matters. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
Other Orders:
|
|
19 September 2019 Horsham Magistrates Court Defendant: Company |
A company on 2 occasions was observed travelling as a class 1 heavy vehicle along the highway, routine inspection of the combinations indicated that the vehicles, after checking with their mass and dimension exemption permit, were operating outside the conditions of their mass and dimension exemption permit. It was also found that the class 1 heavy vehicles were over length (on both occasions) and over height. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
|
|
19 September 2019 Horsham Magistrates Court Defendant: Driver |
Driver intercepted in a heavy vehicle with observation that the vehicle may be overloaded and also observed no load restraint covering the load of soil, which was loaded over the waterline. Heavy vehicle was weighed on portable weighing devices and found to be loaded at 121% of it mass, thus a severe risk mass breach. |
Section/Act:
Fine:
|