Q&A with Amy Soong: When Traffic Offences Become a Real Risk of Imprisonment

Traffic matters in Queensland can escalate into imprisonment far more quickly than many clients or junior practitioners realise. In this Q&A, Amy Soong, Legal Practice Director at Ashworth Lawyers breaks down the key offences that carry the highest custodial risk, the early red flags that signal a routine matter may turn serious, and the strategies that make a real difference when negotiating charges or preparing submissions. She also shares practical guidance on navigating factual disputes, rehabilitation, and the legislative traps that can determine whether a client goes to prison — or avoids it entirely.

Q: From your perspective, when do traffic offences in Queensland cross the line into matters where imprisonment becomes a real risk for clients?

• Courts can take traffic offences very seriously particularly if there was a high risk to public safety. The court will consider the overall circumstances including the manner of driving, weather conditions, and the road users at the time. Aggravating features such as intoxication, and repeat offences, will also increase risk of imprisonment.

Q: What are the highest risk driving offences you see in practice, such as dangerous operation causing death or grievous bodily harm, or repeat drink driving, and what factors increase the likelihood of a custodial sentence?

• The highest risk matters are dangerous operation causing death or grievous bodily harm, and repeat drink driving, especially with high readings.
• Where someone has died or been seriously injured, the court focuses heavily on punishment and deterrence. Excessive speed, alcohol or drugs, racing, fleeing police, or a poor traffic history all increase the likelihood of custody.
• With repeat drink driving, the risk of jail rises quickly if the reading is high, there are prior offences, or the person was already disqualified. A bad history and failure to address alcohol issues makes imprisonment much more likely.

Q: In your experience, what early warning signs should practitioners look for that a matter which seems routine may actually escalate into serious sentencing exposure?

• Matters often look routine at first glance, particularly in the Magistrates Court, but a few red flags can increase risk for the client, such as a poor or lengthy traffic history. What might appear to be ‘just another’ drink driving can quickly escalate if there are prior similar offences, especially recent ones (within 5 years).
• High readings, allegations of excessive speed, an accident, or any injury significantly change the landscape. The presence of drugs, passengers in the vehicle, or driving whilst already disqualified are also warning signs.
• Another issue is how the police frame the facts. If the summary suggests prolonged dangerous driving, attempts to evade police, or blatant disregard for safety, the court is likely to treat it more seriously than the charge alone suggests. In this situation, if those facts are not an element to the charge, consider if it is appropriate to negotiate the facts to remove it or change the wording.
• Finally, a client who has not taken early steps towards rehabilitation, such as treatment or counselling, is at greater risk.

Q: What strategies are most effective when negotiating with prosecutors or trying to reduce charges in serious or repeat driving matters?

Focus on the elements of the offence to identify any gaps or weaknesses but as with any negotiation, be careful not to bring to the prosecutor’s attention any issues they are likely able to resolve. This also depends on your client’s intentions as to whether the matter is likely contested or not. If the matter could be contested, then you may not wish to bring the issues in the case to the prosecutor’s attention. In that situation, you could focus on why there may be public interest factors to not proceed per the Prosecution’s Guidelines available online. If the matter is for sentence, consider if there are any facts which could be negotiated to reduce the severity of the sentence. A few minor changes in wording can make a big difference as to the impression formed by the Magistrate. It is also critical as with any plea, that the client understands the facts which will be read out and to which they are pleading to. If they disagree with any aspect, consider if it is appropriate to negotiate it. Often there are facts which ‘may not make a difference’, but if so, consider whether it is better to ask the prosecutor to remove it rather than the client pleading to it. If it ‘does not make a difference’, then a prosecutor may more likely accept it to resolve a matter, but again small changes can make a difference to the impression formed by the Magistrate when sentencing.

Q: How do you approach preparing submissions that genuinely reduce the risk of imprisonment, particularly where rehabilitation, remorse or contributing circumstances are relevant?

Apply the usual sentencing factors as you would to any plea, to a traffic matter but focus on any genuine remorse and why a client may not be of high risk to the public. For example, engaging in a driving intervention course early is important in some cases especially if it is a repeat offence. Clients should be provided details to complete the course early as it takes time to finish and for a certificate to be issued. Also consider the problems the client will face if they are unable to drive for a certain amount of time. For example, they might have enough savings or made arrangements for their children or work to get through a disqualification of 1 month, but anything beyond that may cause them serious problems. Tell the court what arrangements the client has made and why a longer period may cause them problems. This shows that they are realistic, sensible, and forward thinking, which helps on a submission that the client is at low risk of reoffending. Also consider any lengthy of time they have been unable to drive already (immediate suspensions). Even if it cannot be formally discounted, the court can informally take it into account.

Q: If you could give practitioners one key piece of advice for defending high risk driving matters in 2026, what would it be?

• Before you plead a client, make sure the prosecution have dotted their I’s and crossed their T’s.
• The Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 can be quite fiddly. There are sections, subsections and even sub-subsections that materially affect penalty. Read very carefully which precise charge your client is facing and ensure any aggravating features are correctly charged.
• For example, if it is alleged your client is a repeat offender or has a relevant history within five years, which increases the maximum penalty, but they have not charged the correct subsection, then your client is not charged with that aggravated form of the offence. Upon a plea, they cannot be convicted of it and those facts should not be taken into account by the court.
• That can mean a significant difference in penalty, including the difference between no disqualification or a much shorter period of disqualification. In some cases, it can mean the difference between prison or no prison.
• Even if you have done that type of matter many times before, read the charge section again. The same offence can read differently with a different set of facts. It is critical to read it carefully in light of your client’s particular circumstances.