Ineke De Grussa, 64, appeared in the Esperance Magistrates Court on November 2, 2007, on a charge of driving with a blood alcohol content in excess of 0.08 per cent.

Mrs De Grussa had been drinking at home on September 30, however when she and her husband left the house to drive to her son’s barbecue she was stopped for a random breath test on Pink Lake Road where she was calculated to have a blood alcohol content of 0.12 per cent.

Mrs De Grussa said that although she did not feel drunk, she did not make any excuses for her actions, pleaded guilty to the court and apologised to the Justices of the Peace presiding over the matter.

She was fined $600 plus $110.20 court costs and her licence was suspended for four months.

She then regained her licence on March 4, after confirming with police and the Department of Transport that she was eligible to drive again, however almost six weeks after regaining her licence, on April 13, Mrs De Grussa was issued a summons to appear in court again.

The summons stated that Mrs De Grussa required a correction of her sentence from a four month sentence to the mandatory sentence of five months.

Mrs De Grussa was to appear in court on May 7, however she was away from Esperance on a carer’s retreat on that date.

Magistrate Denis Temby said in court that due to a ruling by a Supreme Court justice, sentences could not be back-dated, and Mrs De Grussa would have to carry out the entire five months disqualification again, despite already having fully served the original sentence.

The sole carer of her MS suffering husband, Mrs De Grussa said that she originally appeared before the court in good faith, and said she should not be forced to carry out the sentence again.

“I went according to the sentence put down upon me,” she said.

“The police prosecutor did not protest to the sentencing at the time.

“The Justices of the Peace made a mistake. That is an internal thing between them and the police and I should not be dragged into that.

“If the Justices of the Peace were inexperienced in dealing with the Road Traffic Act they should have had the matter adjourned to a magistrate.

Mrs De Grussa said she would not have objected if the original suspension was five months, however she did not think she should have to carry out the sentence again.

“I don’t understand what they are trying to gain. Is this justice?” she asked.

Member for Roe, Dr Graham Jacobs, said the situation was unfair on Mrs De Grussa.

“She has a chronically ill husband, her licence is important to her, and because of an administrative bungle they expect her to carry out the sentence again.”

“It was a mistake of the system and she shouldn’t be forced to carry it out again, and I will offer any assistance I can to help the court see common sense.”