Fundamentación teórica

The Victorian alcohol ignition interlock program was the first legislated mandatory program in Australia, coming into effect on 1 May 2002. It operated exclusively as a judicial-based system, with strict liability offences and mandatory sentencing; hence the high number of drivers prosecuted and entering the program. Since 2003, 38,548 interlock conditions on licences have been issued and 35,180 interlocks fitted (as at end 2012).

For offences committed on or after 1 October 2014, alcohol interlocks are mandatory for:

• all learner and probationary licensed offenders with a BAC>0.00 (subject to a zero BAC limit) • all first-time offenders with a BAC of 0.07 or more

• all repeat offenders.

The period of the mandatory interlock fitment is: • A minimum of six months for a first offence

• 12 months for a second offence if the BAC is less than 0·15 grams per 100 millilitres of blood or in the breath was less than 0·15 grams per 210 litres of exhaled air

• four years in any other case.

In addition, the Road Safety Amendment Act 2014 extends the vehicle impoundment provision to include first-time drink-drivers detected with a BAC of 0.10 or above. The relevant parent Act is the Road Safety Act

1986.

The 2014 legislation also establishes an administrative scheme for imposing an alcohol interlock condition (s 31KA) as well as removal, through VicRoads (referred to as VicRoads managed). Offenders are eligible for the administrative component if they register a BAC of below 0.1 g/ml blood or 0.1g/210L exhaled breath and it is a first offence. This applies to L/P drivers / riders with a BAC >0.0, full licence holders with a BAC ≥0.07 - <0.1, and those subject to zero BAC with BAC≥0.05, and whose licence is cancelled. In these instances, drivers are not required to apply for a licence restoration order through the Magistrates Court assuming: i) no other specified Summary Offence was committed during the disqualification period; ii) the person was disqualified under specific sections of the Act, and iii) the required disqualification period has been served. All other BAC offence types are court-managed (including a combined drug / drink-drive offence at any BAC) and the offender must apply for relicensing through the Court where the issuance of an alcohol interlock is mandatory, but the time period for fitment can be determined to some extent by the Court.

For fully licensed drivers over 26 with a BAC of 0.05–0.07, 10 demerit points apply. Victoria Police must issue a Traffic Infringement Notice (TIN), but also have discretion in issuing a ‘charge and summons’ for BAC offences of 0.05-0.07. Pursuant to such a charge, the driver is required to appear at the Magistrates Court, where the fitment of the alcohol interlock is at the discretion of the Court. A driver can also object to a TIN and continue to drive until the case is heard.

The evolution of the Victorian alcohol interlock program is an important case study. Prior to the October 2014 changes, entry requirements had been modified such that offences committed from 1 January 2007 onward, whether the offender was older or younger than 26 was a critical determinant of the penalty.

Drink-drive offenders apply to either VicRoads if eligible (see above) or to the Court for licence restoration following completion of their cancellation period. Court-managed drivers restoring their licence with an interlock condition must attend a Licence Eligibility Order (LEO) hearing.

From 30 January 2015 all new alcohol interlocks fitted must also include a camera (except those fitted to motorcycles). Photo images are captured and form the basis of violations being contested on the part of the driver. All program participants can access the Alcohol Interlock Management System (AIMS), which contains details of all alcohol interlock violations. This is critical to determining whether the driver can apply to have the ‘I’ condition removed, as a violation free period is required, with 5 ‘pass’ months needed to be eligible; that is, there are no violations in the month otherwise the required violation-free period is reset to zero.

Removal of the alcohol interlock requires a violation-free period to be observed so as to demonstrate successful separation of drinking-and-driving. VicRoads managed participants apply to VicRoads directly, while for court-managed offenders to obtain an Alcohol Interlock Condition Removal Order (ICRO), drivers must provide one assessment report. If the LEO and the ICRO are granted, VicRoads will issue a licence so long as no other matters are outstanding.

Court-managed program participants are also required to undertake two non-medical/non-psychological assessments by an accredited driver education and training agency prior to completion of the program. Drivers under 25 must also participate in an eight-hour drink-driver education program, usually completed over two sessions; this can also apply to VicRoads managed drivers. At each contact with the assessment agency, drivers are breath-tested and must return a 0.00 BAC to participate. Assessments must be completed within three months.

As with other Australian states, Victoria stipulates that only approved interlocks can be fitted to vehicles by authorised dealers who also download interlock data every 30 days and service the device, including calibration.

Penalties for program violation (i.e., drink-driving) - include fines, imprisonment and vehicle clamping - can extend the interlock period. All participants must have a 0.00 BAC when driving.

The program operates on a user pays basis, with concessions available to those who possess an Australian government-issued HCC. The minimum cost for a six-month interlock period without a HCC discount is $1,175 - $175 installation and $150 for month in lease costs.

There is no requirement to attend alcohol and other drug (AOD) counselling services. Sheehan et al. (2005) commented on the inability of the Victorian interlock program to target both traffic and health-related outcomes when attempting to rehabilitate recidivist drivers. This thesis can be supported by the finding that of the 1,500 interlock compliance reports assessed in Victoria, 1,227 demonstrated program violations, with 1,061 drivers recording an BAC greater than 0.02 on the interlock on at least one initial test (O'Connell, 2013). This finding highlights the inability of the interlock device alone to alter underlying maladaptive drinking patterns but does support the efficacy of interlocks in preventing drink-driving episodes. The recently added requirement for program participants to prove the separation of drinking-and-driving through violation free periods demonstrates that this point about alcohol interlock device effectiveness dissipating once removed is well recognised.

Relevant Acts:

Road Safety (Alcohol Interlocks) Act 2002, Act No. 1/2002 Road Safety Amendment Act 2014 (NO. 49 OF 2014). Road Safety Amendment Act 1986 (NO. 127 OF 1986).