The applicant submitted that he was unable to operate the alcohol interlock because of respiratory issues and therefore his licence should not be subject to the MAIS conditions. Medical evidence provided by two experts stated that the applicant has sufficient lung capacity and expiratory flow rate to activate an alcohol interlock.

• the applicant is medically able to operate an alcohol interlock. There are no prescribed circumstances warranting an exemption under s 81E(4).

Administrative review - Motor Vehicles Act 1959 - Review of a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to refuse an exemption from Mandatory Alcohol Interlock Scheme conditions

Motor Vehicles Act 1959 ss 81E, 98Z

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ss 34, 37

Motor Vehicles Regulations 2010 reg 61

Road Traffic Act 1961 ss 47E

Made under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 37(1)(a)

1. This is an application made by Mr Gledhill under s 34 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SACAT Act) for review of a decision of a delegate of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles made on 10 February 2025 under s 98Z of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (MV Act).
2. The delegate upheld a decision to issue Mr Gledhill a probationary driver's licence on 27 December 2024 that was subject to a mandatory alcohol interlock scheme (MAIS) condition for a period of 365 days.
3. This matter was originally listed for a full hearing this morning. However, Mr Gledhill wrote to the Tribunal Registry yesterday indicating that he would be unavailable to attend the full hearing as he was unwell. Subsequently, the parties agreed that the Tribunal could determine this matter on the papers.
4. I have had regard to the material that was before the Registrar and to the additional written evidence and submissions put before the Tribunal on review. This includes Mr Gledhill's brief written submissions dated 7 July 2025, which are referred to further below.
5. For the reasons that follow, I consider that the decision made on 10 February 2025 is the correct or preferable decision and that it should be affirmed.

1. The imposition of the MAIS condition on Mr Gledhill's licence occurred under s 81E of the MV Act which states:

81E - Circumstances in which licence will be subject to mandatory alcohol interlock scheme conditions > > (1) In this section - > > disqualification means disqualification from holding or obtaining a licence or learner's permit; > > serious drink driving offence means any drink driving offence other than - > > (a) a category 1 offence; or > > (b) a category 2 offence that is a first offence. > > (2) In determining whether a category 2 offence is a first offence for the purposes of this section, any previous drink driving offence (other than a category 1 offence) for which the defendant has been convicted will be taken into account, but only if the previous offence was committed within the period of 5 years immediately preceding the date on which the offence under consideration was committed. > > (3) Subject to subsection (4), if a person who applies for a licence -

(a) has been disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence by order of a court on conviction for a serious drink driving offence committed on or after the commencement of this section; and

(b) the person has not held a licence since the end of the period of disqualification,

a licence issued to the person will be subject to the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme conditions (in addition to any conditions otherwise required) until -

(c) the conditions have been effective for the following period (the prescribed minimum period):

(i) in the case of a person who has been given a notice of immediate licence disqualification or suspension under section 47IAA of the Road Traffic Act 1961 in respect of the offence -

(A) subject to subsubparagraph (AB), a period equal to the aggregate of the period of licence disqualification or suspension that has applied as a result of the notice and the period of disqualification for the offence ordered by the court; or

(AB) in the case of an order made under section 47IAA(9)(e)(i) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 - the period equal to the period of disqualification for the offence ordered by the court; or

(B) a period of 3 years,

whichever is the lesser;

(ii) in any other case -

(A) a period equal to the period of disqualification for the offence ordered by the court; or

(B) a period of 3 years,

whichever is the lesser; and

(d) the person qualifies for the issue of a licence that is not subject to the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme conditions in accordance with subsection (5).

(4) If the applicant satisfies the Registrar, on such evidence as the Registrar may require, that prescribed circumstances exist in the particular case, a licence issued to the applicant will not be subject to the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme conditions.

(5) The holder of a licence subject to the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme conditions qualifies for the issue of a licence not subject to such conditions if -

(a) the conditions have been effective for the prescribed minimum period; and

(b) the Registrar is satisfied that, during the immediately preceding period of 3 months, the alcohol interlock fitted to the nominated vehicle for the person has not recorded any incidents of a kind specified in a notice by the Minister in the Gazette.

(6) For the purposes of this section, in determining whether the mandatory alcohol interlock conditions of a person's licence have been effective for the prescribed minimum period, the following periods are not to be taken into account:

(a) any period during which an alcohol interlock was not fitted to the nominated vehicle for the person;

(b) any period during which there was no nominated vehicle for the person;

(c) any period during which the person's licence was suspended under this Act or another law of this State (unless the suspension came into operation before the commencement of this paragraph).

1. The respondent asserts that Mr Gledhill committed a serious drink driving offence on 22 March 2021 and that his licence was immediately suspended until 2 June 2021. The relevant offence was refusing or failing to comply with a direction of police in relation to an alcotest or breath analysis. I note that this appears to be an offence under s 47E(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1961, which is not a category 1 or category 2 offence, and is hence a serious drink driving offence for the purposes of s 81E of the MV Act. The respondent asserts that Mr Gledhill was subsequently disqualified by the Court from driving from 9 March 2024 until 25 December 2024 and that his licence was cancelled on 9 March 2024.
2. The terms of s 81E(3) of the MV Act are mandatory. However, it is subject to s 81E(4). I understand that the only issue between the parties is whether s 81E(4) applies to Mr Gledhill such that his licence should not be subject to the MAIS condition.
3. Section 81E(4) requires consideration of reg 61 of the Motor Vehicles Regulations 2010 (MV Regulations). This states:

61 - Circumstances in which licence not subject to mandatory alcohol interlock scheme conditions > > For the purposes of section 81E(4) of the Act, the prescribed circumstances are that -

(a) the applicant for a licence is unable to operate an alcohol interlock by reason of some physical or medical condition of the applicant; and

(b) it is not reasonably practicable for an alcohol interlock to be modified so as to enable the applicant to operate the device.

1. There are two limbs to reg 61 that must both be satisfied.
2. An alcohol interlock is currently connected to Mr Gledhill's vehicle. It operates by being blown into at the commencement of a journey and at intervals during the journey.
3. Mr Gledhill does not think his licence should be subject to the MAIS condition. He referred in his application for review to having respiratory issues. He referred to having a hypersensitive airway condition, laryngospasm, hyperreactive airways, anxiety and asthma. Mr Gledhill had an appointment for a lung function test with his specialist for 30 May 2025 and proposed then filing a medical report from his specialist.
4. Mr Gledhill however did not file a medical report. He instead states in his submissions of 7 July 2025 that:

* I have attended my specialist appointment however I don't have any further information to submit > > * I have read the document that [respondent's solicitor] has submitted however do not agree with all that has been mentioned > > * I have discussed this matter with legal aid and the person I sat down with thought for a first offence the interlock was an extreme form of punishment, in addition to not having my license for 12 months plus all the fines incurred causing financial hardship. > > * I did not refuse to comply with the breath test when this incident occurred and did not initially refuse the blood test as shown on bodycam footage. The police officer said to keep trying where I feel this was setting me up to fail. > > * An ambulance should have been called to the scene and they could have taken me to hospital to be checked over and to have blood taken, I was open to this. I feel the police officers were negligent in regards to this. > > * My specialist agreed that this device is a big distraction, I've almost had 3 accidents due to this device being fitted in my vehicle. > > * I would like the Registrar of motor vehicles be held accountable if this device causes an accident, I cannot pull over when the device goes off randomly as I live in the Adelaide Hills and cannot pull over on the up track nor the down track or when surrounded by traffic, it's just not that simple. > > * I feel that this whole situation is based around government revenue not people's safety and people's lives. > > * I feel in my case the interlock should be removed and I would appreciate your consideration on an individual case basis.

5. However, the Tribunal can only take into account the question of whether Mr Gledhill is "unable to operate an alcohol interlock by reason of some physical or medical condition" and, if so, whether it is "reasonably practicable for an alcohol interlock to be modified" so as to enable him to operate it. Therefore, Mr Gledhill's submissions of 7 July 2025 are essentially irrelevant. The Tribunal will not permit Mr Gledhill to relitigate in these proceedings his guilt or innocence of the drink driving offence of which he was convicted by the Court. The Tribunal will not permit Mr Gledhill to relitigate in these proceedings the sentence that Mr Gledhill received from the Court. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction in these matters. The Tribunal also cannot take into account any generalised concerns that Mr Gledhill may have about safety considerations in the use of the MAIS device nor questions of his convenience when driving his vehicle. The terms of reg 61 set out the sole issue that can be considered.
6. I am satisfied that the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that Mr Gledhill is able to operate an alcohol interlock. There is no evidence that he is unable to do so by reason of some physical or medical condition.
7. I take into account the medical evidence of Dr Ral Antic and Dr Thang Vuong.
8. Dr Antic is a respiratory and sleep physician. He appears to be Mr Gledhill's specialist. Dr Antic's report of 25 October 2024 apparently followed pulmonary function tests done on the same date. He stated that Mr Gledhill's:

current lung function is normal and well done [sic] by lab testing. We previously established that he has hyper-reactive airways. He is concerned that as happened when pulled up by police 3 years ago, he will not be able to do a satisfactory exhalation which will presumably be needed for the vehicle to start. > > It is possible that again he will not be able to perform the test, be it from panic/anxiety, laryngospasm or if the airways are more hyper-reactive than today.

9. Dr Antic's report is clearly not evidence that Mr Gledhill is unable to operate an alcohol interlock by reason of some physical or medical condition. He opines only that it is a possibility in certain circumstances.
10. Dr Vuong prepared a report dated 18 December 2024. Dr Vuong reviewed Dr Antic's letter and the tests done on the same date. Dr Vuong opined that Mr Gledhill has sufficient lung capacity and expiratory flow rate to activate the interlock device.
11. Mr Gledhill has not provided any medical evidence to contradict that of Drs Antic and Vuong. I place no countervailing weight on the assertions made by Mr Gledhill as to his lung function. There is no indication that Mr Gledhill has relevant medical training to be able to express such views.
12. As Mr Gledhill cannot satisfy the first limb of reg 61 of the MV Regulations, he cannot satisfy s 81E(4) of the MV Act. It is therefore not necessary to determine if the second limb of reg 61 is satisfied.
13. Under s 34 of the SACAT Act, I must reach the correct or preferable decision. I am satisfied that the correct or preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review. This means that Mr Gledhill's licence must remain subject to the MAIS condition.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.