The Court held that where a single act of driving gives rise to multiple charges against the same defendant under different provisions of Part 6 of the Road Transport (General) Regulation 2005 (clauses 46, 49, 50, 64), and the employer's liability under clause 49(2) comprehends its responsibility for the scheduler's and driver's shortcomings, it is an abuse of process to maintain concurrent charges when only one sentence can result. However, the Court found that s 177(1) of the Act does not bar the bringing of multiple charges but only prevents multiple punishments, and that concurrent charges based on driving while impaired by fatigue and breach of standard work hours are not necessarily based on the same facts, as fatigue may be proved independently of work hours breaches. The proceedings were stayed pending the prosecutor's election as to which charges to proceed with.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.