People’s Revolution rallyist Tristan Vanrye asks for trial to be thrown out after “unfair” speeding debacle

Tristan ‘Triccy’ Vanrye, a rallyist with the People’s Revolution, represented himself in Ipswich Court yesterday — calling out the “unfair” admin errors made throughout his legal battle for an alleged speeding offence.

A People’s Revolution rallyist represented himself in Ipswich court yesterday, arguing that further punishment for his speeding offences would be unfair due to administration errors made throughout his legal battle.

The southwest Brisbane man, Tristan ‘Triccy’ Vanrye, 36, appeared for mention with one charge of disobeying the speed limit.

He represented himself, and told Magistrate David Shepherd he wanted the trial to “be stopped and thrown out” due to what he said would be unfair penalties if he were to be found guilty.

The court heard that on January 31, 2021, Mr Vanrye allegedly drove over the 80km/hr speed limit by between 20 and 30km/hr on the Logan Motorway, westbound from Carole Park.

When asked how he pleaded, Mr Vanrye said it was “a bit more complicated than that”.

He said the Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) had already penalised him for the offence with eight demerit points last year, resulting in a three-month licence suspension.

“I elected to have this issue dealt with before the licence suspension with court; somehow that’s been missed,” he said.

Tristan 'Triccy' Vanrye, a People's Revolution rallyist that defended himself in Ipswich court against a speeding charge.

The police prosecutor, Sergeant Illmore said the matter had proceeded last year on November 1, and that Mr Vanrye had not appeared in court — which Mr Vanrye said he had not been made aware of.

Mr Vanrye said he had prearranged a telephone appearance for the matter, but had not received a call.

Magistrate Shepherd said the number provided was definitely called, and that was why the matter was dealt with in his absence.

Sergeant Illmore said DTMR took action as a result, but that Mr Vanrye then applied to reopen the matter, and it was listed again for January 17, 2022.

Mr Vanrye appeared via telephone and his conviction and penalties were set aside – but he had already served the three months suspension at that stage, and received eight demerit points.

Mr Vanrye explained that he received an extra four demerit points because he had a previous speeding offence of over 20km/hr within the previous 12 months.

“I’ve been penalised twice for that. This would be the third time really,” he said.

Magistrate Shepherd, however noted that the DTMR’s letter issuing Mr Vanrye’s licence suspension was dated March 29, 2021 — “well and truly” before the matter was dealt with in court.

Mr Vanrye said that this was one of “at least two administrative errors” made throughout the process of having the matter dealt with.

Sergeant Illmore said regardless of when DTMR issued the suspension, Mr Vanrye hadn’t actually been convicted of the offence yet.

“According to that letter from the Department of Transport and Main Roads, he has been,” said Magistrate Shepherd.

“How can you bring a charge when someone has already been ticketed and penalised for it?”

Sergeant Illmore said “I accept that in some sense it may appear that the action taken by TMR may be a punishment for the defendant, but it is not a punishment for the actual speeding offence itself”.

Magistrate Shepherd said Sergeant Illmore was right in that the court had nothing to do with the actual allocation of demerit points, but that allocation of demerit points could only occur when there had been an offence.

“It’s not really for this court to determine what TMR do and why TMR do it,” said Sergeant Illmore.

Magistrate Shepherd maintained it was nonetheless relevant if DTMR had unduly punished Mr Vanrye for this offence.

He said this would only have occurred if a conviction was recorded — which it wasn’t — or if a speeding ticket had been paid.

Mr Vanrye said that may have been the case, but he did not have any evidence either way at this stage — and Sergeant Illmore indicated this was unlikely, looking at Mr Vanrye’s traffic history.

“All I can say is there’s been multiple errors made … Unfortunately I’m the one being penalised — unfairly in my opinion,” said Mr Vanrye.

Tristan 'Triccy' Vanrye, a People's Revolution rallyist that defended himself in Ipswich court against a speeding charge.

Magistrate Shepherd said the issue would have to be resolved before the trial could continue.

He told Mr Vanrye that he would have to take the matter up with DTMR.

“If they’ve made an error in allocating those demerit points to you, then that’s their error. It’s not the court’s error,” he said.

Mr Vanrye said he had already spoken to them, and that they had told him they would automatically have to punish him further if he was found guilty — and that there was nothing they could do to take their previous actions back.

“All I can see is that if I get found guilty, it’s a totally unfair and unjust situation, and I’m gonna be penalised more than once for it,” he said.

Magistrate Shepherd maintained that he would have to take it up with DTMR and that he didn’t accept that there wasn’t anything they could do to resolve the matter and avoid unduly punishing Mr Vanrye if he were to be found guilty.

Mr Vanrye asked for an adjournment to investigate the matter further — which he noted he believed to be a waste of resources for the court, the police, and himself.

“If this goes through and I do get found guilty, I’ll be appealing the decision and seeking costs from the police,” he said.

Magistrate Shepherd said he was “inclined to give Mr Vanrye time to investigate the issue – only on the basis that if there has been some payment, because of the errors that have obviously cropped up, it has been missed.”

He adjourned the matter for review-mention in Ipswich court on July 25, 2022.

Originally published as People’s Revolution rallyist Tristan Vanrye asks for trial to be thrown out after “unfair” speeding debacle