Drink driver loses bid to remove ignition lock from car
A CONVICTED high-range drink-driver has lost a court battle to have an alcohol ignition interlock device removed from his licensing requirements.
Army Corporal Jack Bragg was convicted of driving with a 0.151 blood alcohol reading in August 2012.
After serving his period of driver licence disqualification he became subject to an alcohol interlock device condition for a further two-years.
Subsequently he applied for an exemption to the condition with the Department of Transport arguing he was required to drive a range of vehicles during the course of his work at the RAAF base at Amberley and it would not be possible to have devices fitted to all those vehicle.
The Department of Transport refused his application.
Corporal Bragg took his fight to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal last year where it overturned the Department of Transport's decision.
At the time he argued he should be exempt from the condition as it would result in severe financial hardship for his family if he was to lose his job with the army because of his inability to drive vehicles.
However, the Department of Transport appealed the decision and the initial requirement to drive a vehicle fitted with an alcohol ignition interlock device was reinstated.
In handing down its findings last month the tribunal found that Corporal Bragg's case did not fall under the exemption criteria because there was a number of vehicles available to Corporal Bragg not just a single vehicle which could not be fitted with the device.
"Corporal Bragg provided documents about military vehicle requirements and Australian Defence Force policy about modifications to its vehicles."
"The difficulty, as we understand it, is not that it is physically impossible to fit an interlock device to most military vehicles, but rather that the Australian Defence Force will not permit it.
"Putting aside the question of physical impossibility, this exemption cannot apply in any event because there is not just one vehicle available to be driven by Corporal Bragg."
"Corporal Bragg's case is that he is required to drive a variety of vehicle in the course of his work."
"We consider that there is no grounds of exemption to Corporal Bragg and the department's appeal should be allowed."