Section 223: How Power Became Arbitrary?

When Marium Marium entered Blacktown Local Court on 20 November 2025, she was not reckless, intoxicated, or careless. She was living with Benign Positional Vertigo (BPV) — a condition caused by a workplace injury and verified by her treating neurologist and general practitioner. Her doctors had already ruled her fit to drive in the first week of November 2025, confirming that her condition was well managed and stable.
Her driving record was spotless.

She had no demerit points on her licence.

Marium also experiences a mild stammer when under high pressure — a speech pattern that predates her vertigo and occasionally surfaces in courtroom environments. It is not slurred speech, not confusion, and certainly not a sign of intoxication or incompetence. It is a natural response to stress, familiar to anyone who has ever been anxious in public.

But that day in court, pressure — the very thing known to trigger both her vertigo and her stammer — was treated not as a human reality, but as a defect.

The Hearing That Became Too Much

The case was a traffic infringement challenge, and from the outset, Marium handled herself with confidence and precision. She presented her submissions clearly, cited the law accurately, and remained composed despite facing a professional prosecution team.

For most of the hearing, she stood at the podium microphone, addressing the Magistrate directly, while the prosecutor remained seated, standing only when making formal arguments. Marium, however, spoke from a standing position throughout — without rest, without pause, and without support.

She argued firmly that the prosecution had failed to serve the brief of evidence on time, in breach of Section 183 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). The Magistrate, R. Wong, acknowledged her points and engaged respectfully.

It was only towards the end of her oral submissions on the issue of costs, after nearly an hour on her feet, that Marium began to feel the effects of her vertigo. Her balance wavered slightly, and she quietly requested permission to sit. The Magistrate allowed it without issue.

Her advocacy until that moment had been coherent, persuasive, and professional. Even in discomfort, she had conducted herself with dignity and clarity.

After reviewing her medical certificate and the circumstances of the case, the Magistrate granted the adjournment and dismissed the prosecution’s costs application — confirming that Marium’s conduct had been reasonable and lawful.

The Confrontation Outside

When the hearing ended, Marium was exhausted. She stepped outside to rest, only to find the same two officers — Constable Jessica Lauren Harlock and Constable Brody Taylor — waiting for her. They were the very officers who had issued the infringement notice she was challenging and had watched the prosecutors argue that she was well enough to run a trial.

Yet now, only minutes later, the same NSW Police and prosecutorial team suddenly believed she was unfit to drive. Inside the courtroom, they treated her as capable enough to defend herself; outside, they decided she was incapable of walking away.

They told her she could not leave, claiming to have “safety concerns” and that an ambulance was on its way. Marium told them she didn’t need one — her doctors had already confirmed her condition was managed and safe. But they refused to listen. They made her sit on a bench, surrounding her closely.

She felt detained, not cared for. The so-called “duty of care” appeared suddenly — not when she was struggling inside court, but when she had already won her application.

And still, no ambulance ever arrived.

It is impossible not to ask: was this really about her welfare — or could it have been retaliation for losing inside the courtroom?

The Suspension Notice

Without explanation, Constable Harlock handed her a “Notice of Suspension and Demand for Surrender of Driver Licence – S223.” The notice cited Section 223 of the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) — a power reserved for the Commissioner of Police to suspend a driver’s licence for up to 14 days if the driver is incompetent, reckless, careless, or intoxicated.

Marium was none of those things — and the Magistrate had made no such finding.

Even the document itself proved how baseless it was:

• Part 1 (for foreign licence holders) was crossed out.

• Part 2 (for NSW licence holders) — the only section requiring the reason for suspension — was completely blank.

No grounds. No evidence. No lawful authority.
And yet, Marium was told to surrender her licence within two days.

The notice bore the name of Sergeant Daniel Faccin, who later confirmed that the suspension had been made on the basis that Marium was “incompetent.” Sergeant Faccin admitted that Parts 1 and 2 of the form were left blank because “they were not applicable.” He further claimed to rely on “Section 3 of the form” — even though no such section exists in the legislation.

He alleged that the decision was based on her “slurred speech” and “unsteady posture” in court.
But that claim is disputed. Marium’s speech was not slurred — it was a stammer, something she has experienced for years, especially in courtroom settings long before her vertigo diagnosis. It is a speech pattern, not a symptom of intoxication, confusion, or incompetence.

Her neurologist confirmed that her cognitive and motor functions were normal, and the Magistrate had recognised her as a capable and articulate self-represented litigant. The officers did not call an ambulance. They did not seek medical confirmation. They did not follow process. Instead, they acted first — and listened never.

Conclusion

Marium Marium was not incompetent, reckless, careless, or intoxicated. The Magistrate ruled no such thing.
Her doctors confirmed she was fit to drive. Her record showed zero demerit points. Her only conditions were vertigo, triggered by stress and fatigue, and a speech stammer that sometimes surfaces in high-pressure environments. Neither affects her capacity, intelligence, or safety as a driver.

She needed understanding.
She received accusation.
She sought fairness.
She was met with judgment.

Postscript: Complaint Lodged with NSW Police

Following the incident, Marium Marium lodged a formal complaint with NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon.
The NSW Police Force Customer Assistance Unit acknowledged receipt and confirmed that her complaint has been referred to the North West Metropolitan Region Professional Standards Unit for assessment and handling by the relevant Police Area Command.
A response from that command is expected within 21 days.


Particulars :

Name: Marium Marium
Date of Court Appearance: 20 November 2025
Case Number: 2025/00237982
Officers Involved: Constable Jessica Lauren Harlock, Constable Brody Taylor
Supervising Officer (Suspension Notice): Sergeant Daniel Faccin
Legislation Cited: Section 223, Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)
Medical Status: Cleared as fit to drive – first week of November 2025
Complaint Reference: NSW Police Force CAU Ref: CAS-2365989-N6B8
Complaint Recipient: Commissioner Mal Lanyon, NSW Police
Status: Under assessment by North West Metropolitan Region Professional Standards Unit