Today’s question comes from a volunteer at St John Ambulance (WA) who tells me their sub-centre

… recently received in the post from the WA Transport Office “return plates” notices as St John Ambulance failed to pay registration fees for all these ambulances.

So in effect we were driving unregistered vehicles.

I find this a catastrophic situation as had any ambulances been in a traffic incident the ramifications would put the ambulance driver in a  very bad predicament.

My question is, 

Where do we stand as volunteers not knowing if registration is paid and where do we stand if an accident did happen?

My understanding is it is the driver who must do the operable vehicle checks and would be liable.

The Road Traffic (Vehicles) Act 2012 (WA) refers to a vehicle being licensed rather than registered but the effect is the same.  Section 4 says:

(1) A vehicle licence is required for a vehicle of a prescribed class.

(2) A responsible person for a vehicle and each person who uses the vehicle on a road commits an offence if, at the time the vehicle is used on the road —

(a) a vehicle licence is required for the vehicle; and

(b) a licence has not been granted in respect of the vehicle or a licence has been granted in respect of the vehicle but is not current.

Penalty: a fine of 10 PU, and in addition, the court is to order the accused to pay a further penalty equal to the charges payable under this Act for the grant of a vehicle licence for the vehicle concerned for a period of 6 months.

(3) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) arising out of the use of a vehicle within a period after the expiry of the licence that is —

(a) prescribed by regulations made under section 6(2)(b) as a period within which the licence may be renewed; and

(b) prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.

(4) …

The Department of Transport says that a penalty unit (PU) is $50 so the maximum fine is $500 plus the equivalent of 6 months registration.

The Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA) s 6(2) says

For the purposes of a road law a person responsible for a vehicle is —

(a) if the vehicle is licensed — any licence holder who has not given a notice as described in paragraph (b); or

(b) …[deals with notice of transfer] …

(c)         if the vehicle is not licensed but was previously licensed and subsection (3) does not apply — a person responsible under paragraph (a) or (b) before the vehicle last ceased to be licensed; or

(d)         in any other case —

 (i) the person who is entitled to the immediate possession of the vehicle; or

(ii) if there are several persons entitled to its immediate possession, the person whose entitlement is paramount.

In effect the ‘person responsible’ will be St John Ambulance (WA) as the they were the vehicle licensee before the licence lapsed and in any case they have the paramount right to possession that is they have a better right to possession than say a member of the organisation.

The period prescribed for the purposes of The Road Traffic (Vehicles) Act 2012 (WA) s 4(3) is 15 days (Road Traffic (Vehicles) Regulations 2014 (WA) r 16). Interesting the department of Transport says you don’t need to return the licence plates until the licence is more than three months out of date (see https://www.transport.wa.gov.au/licensing/renew-replace-my-vehicle-licence.asp) so if St John were getting directions to return the licence plates that is indeed a significant oversight.

Vehicles must also be covered by a compulsory third-party insurance policy (Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA) s 4).  If there is no valid policy in force, both the owner and the driver could be liable for any personal injuries damages paid to a person injured by the use of that motor vehicle (s 8). 

Discussion

If St John Ambulance (WA) failed to renew the licence on its vehicle, and the CEO has cancelled the licence (Road Traffic (Vehicles) Act 2012 (WA) s 9) then there is a 15 days grace period. After that time both St John and anyone driving the vehicle commits an offence by driving the vehicle on a road.   If the vehicle is involved in a collision and someone is injured, both St John and the driver could be liable to pay the value of any compensation paid to the injured person. 

Driving an unlicenced/uninsured vehicle is a very serious matter. One can imagine most agencies (such as the police and the Insurance Commission of Western Australia) would be most interested in pursuing St John rather than an individual, the theoretical possibility of personal liability remains.

There is a defence of mistake of fact (Criminal Code (WA) s 24).  That says ‘A person who does or omits to do an act under an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief in the existence of any state of things is not criminally responsible for the act or omission to any greater extent than if the real state of things had been such as he believed to exist.’

One could argue that given a volunteer is turning up for duty with St John Ambulance and is rostered to an ambulance that is displaying WA licence plates might give rise to a honest and reasonable belief that the ambulance is licensed.  On the other hand, simply assuming that a vehicle is registered is not an ‘honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief’ in the necessary facts particularly if for example the registration papers are kept in the ambulance and can be viewed.  In an earlier (and not so long-ago life) I was driving for Transport Canberra and I recall our instructors suggesting we check the registration of each bus before heading out, which was easy to do using an Access Canberra portal.  A similar service is available via the Western Australia Department of Transport (https://online.transport.wa.gov.au/webExternal/registration/?1). It would, if it came to it, be up to a court to decide whether simply taking out an ambulance, without doing any simple check, was sufficient to give rise to the necessary ‘honest and reasonable’ belief necessary to trigger s 24.

There is also a distinction between absolute and strict liability offences. An absolute liability offence does not allow the defence of mistake. The Criminal Code s 24 says (emphasis added)  ‘The operation of this rule [of mistake] may be excluded by the express or implied provisions of the law relating to the subject.’  In most jurisdictions an offence like driving an unregistered vehicle would be an absolute liability offence.  I have not determined whether there is any WA case law on the subject, but if it is, by implication, an absolute liability offence then the defence of mistake is not available.

Conclusion

Driving an unlicenced/uninsured vehicle is a very serious matter.  Prima facie the driver, as well as the owner, commit an offence when the vehicle is driven on the road and both may be liable if anyone is injured in the use of that motor vehicle.

In the context of a WA volunteer they may be able to rely on the defence of mistake in the Criminal Code but it would be arguable that simply assuming that the vehicle is registered is not sufficient to give rise to the necessary honest and reasonable belief (rather than assumption) and further it may be implied that the defence is not available.

The safer course is to check the registration renewal date and perhaps record that in each sub-centre. That can be done without access to the registration papers if they are held centrally, as the information is freely available via the DoT website.

This blog is made possible with generous financial support from (in alphabetical order) the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), the Australian Paramedics Association (Qld), Natural Hazards Research Australia, NSW Rural Fire Service Association and the NSW SES Volunteers Association. I am responsible for the content in this post including any errors or omissions. Any opinions expressed are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or understanding of the donors.