When a client says the driving was ordinary, sober and safe, the submission may sound like useful traffic mitigation. On a charge of driving while disqualified by court order, it can miss the offence entirely. The driver is before the court for deliberately disobeying its order, not for the quality of the driving.
Boubaris v Commissioner of Police [2026] QDC 90 puts that distinction at the centre of the sentencing exercise. Cash DCJ held that the offence is best understood as one against the administration of justice because its gravamen is disregard of a court order. That is the decision’s useful point. It explains both why otherwise familiar traffic submissions failed and why the case should not be read as setting a general tariff for disqualified driving.
Defiance of the order drove the result
Dimitrios Boubaris pleaded guilty on 25 March 2026 to two counts of driving while disqualified by a court order. The offences occurred in October and December 2025 while a disqualification imposed in 2023 remained in force until February 2027. He had previously been imprisoned for disqualified driving.
The first episode was on Maroochydore Road. Police stopped him at about 11 am on 24 October 2025. He knew of the disqualification and accepted there was no emergency. Police issued a notice requiring him to answer the charge on 25 November. Just before midday on 23 December, after he had appeared in relation to the first charge, police stopped him again on the Bruce Highway. His daughter was in the car. He was taking her to her grandparents’ house and accepted there was no compelling reason to drive.
The Magistrate imposed 15 months’ imprisonment and fixed a parole release date after five months. The reasons, at [2], [12] and [23], all state 15 months. The appellant argued that the penalty was excessive. Cash DCJ found no error, held the sentence was not excessive and dismissed the appeal. His Honour went further: the sentence was “entirely appropriate” ([24]).
A section 222 appeal reviews error, not preference
The appeal came under Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 222. Where a defendant has pleaded guilty or admitted the complaint, s 222(2)(c) confines an appeal to the ground that the punishment was excessive or inadequate. Excess was the only ground pursued here.
Under Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 223, the appeal proceeds by rehearing on the evidence before the Magistrate. Fresh, additional or substituted evidence requires leave and special grounds. The District Court must conduct a real review of the evidence and the Magistrate’s reasons, but that does not turn the proceeding into sentencing afresh merely because another judicial officer might have taken a different course. Cash DCJ applied House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499, with Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] QCA 84; [2009] 2 Qd R 489 on the character of the review.
A claim of excess requires the appellant to show that the sentence fell outside the permissible range in all the circumstances. Cash DCJ cited Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; (2014) 252 CLR 601 and Chakka v Queensland Police Service [2024] QCA 213. A specific error does not itself complete the argument. Appellate intervention follows only if, without that error, a lesser sentence should have been imposed.
That distinction matters in everyday traffic appeals. A submission that a Magistrate gave a factor too much or too little weight usually expresses disagreement with the balance struck. At [19], Cash DCJ said that such a claim does not, of itself, establish error. The appeal therefore had to identify a failure of principle or a sentence outside range, not merely invite a more favourable weighting of the same material.
Strong personal material did not answer specific deterrence
The appellant’s personal material was substantial. At sentence, his solicitor tendered references and a psychological report and made detailed written submissions. Cash DCJ described the collection as impressive. The material showed a stable and supportive family relationship, four young children, community activity, help for a local sports team, significant rehabilitation and evidence that illegal drug use had stopped.
The solicitor relied on Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 9(2)(a)(ii), under which a sentence allowing an offender to remain in the community is preferable in a case of this kind. The solicitor also relied on Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 9(2)(fb), directing attention to the probable effect of sentence on family members. Letters described the appellant’s wife’s reliance on him and the effect imprisonment would have on the family, especially the children.
None of that was overlooked. The Magistrate expressly considered family hardship and rehabilitation. The difficulty was that the appellant knew what further offending could do to his family and drove twice anyway. The second occasion followed the first charge. The Magistrate treated specific and general deterrence as requiring actual custody. Cash DCJ held that the reasons showed the Magistrate had turned his mind to community-based sentencing and was acutely conscious of family impact.
The record also mattered. The appellant was about 40, his criminal history began in his teens, and the Magistrates Court record ran to about 13 pages. It included seven earlier disqualified-driving offences, nine unlicensed-driving offences and nine drink- or drug-driving offences. The Magistrate used the prior record consistently with Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 and did not allow it to overwhelm the sentencing exercise.
Administration of justice is the right, but narrow, characterisation
The appellant submitted that neither episode involved dangerous driving, speeding or drug use. Those matters were true and beside the point. At [23], Cash DCJ reasoned that the seriousness lay in disregard of court orders, so the offence was best understood as one against the administration of justice and differed from other traffic offences for that reason. The absence of accompanying traffic offences did not diminish the conduct.
I think that characterisation is persuasive because it identifies the precise answer to the ground advanced. It does not treat safe driving as aggravating. It explains why its absence did not mitigate deliberate non-compliance, particularly after police had already required the appellant to answer the first charge.
The formulation should nevertheless be kept within its work in this appeal. The judgment did not announce that personal circumstances cease to matter or that imprisonment must follow every breach of a driving disqualification. Cash DCJ examined the statutory considerations, the rehabilitation, the family material, the prior record and the repeated conduct. His Honour also said the 15-month sentence was supported by the cases put to the Magistrate, but did not identify those cases in the reasons. The decision therefore supplies a useful characterisation, not a stand-alone sentencing range.
There is a fair counterpoint. Disqualified driving remains conduct on the road, and the absence of dangerous driving may still help describe what occurred. Yet it cannot do the argumentative work the appellant asked of it here. Where the offence is knowing disobedience of an extant order, ordinary driving tells the court little about the defiance that constitutes the wrong.
Build the submission around obedience, not driving quality
For a practitioner preparing sentence, the first question is why the client drove despite the order. The answer needs evidence. In this case, the explanations were family assistance, but the appellant accepted there was no emergency on the first occasion and no compelling reason on the second. The Magistrate described the pattern as illegal driving when it suited the appellant. A vague appeal to convenience will rarely engage with specific deterrence where earlier penalties have failed.
Next, connect rehabilitation to future obedience. References, treatment material and family dependence remain relevant, but their force depends on showing why the offender will now respect the order. The solicitor below assembled strong material. It did not remove the significance of a long record and a second offence committed after the first had already reached court.
On appeal, identify the alleged legal or factual error before debating weight. A genuine failure to consider a mandatory matter is different from a complaint that the matter did not receive enough weight. Then address materiality: explain why a lesser sentence should have followed without the error. Practitioners can place that appellate framework alongside Fraser Lawyers’ overview of Queensland traffic law matters and its broader criminal law service.
The full reasons are available as Boubaris v Commissioner of Police [2026] QDC 90. The sharpest practical lesson is simple. Do not let the absence of bad driving stand in for an explanation of why a court order was knowingly disobeyed.
Published 5 August 2026.
If you would like to discuss your matter, you can book a consultation or call (07) 5554 6116.
