MULLIGAN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 96

MULLIGAN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 96

The Court concluded the indefinite disqualification under s65 was not appropriate and quashed it, substituting an alcohol interlock sentence under the relevant provisions of the Land Transport Act 1998.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] NZHC 96
Parties
Appellant: Jordan Francis Mulligan; Respondent: New Zealand Police
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
7 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Sentence / High Court Hearing (avl) Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed and substituted
Legal Topics
Indefinite Disqualification, Alcohol Interlock, Land Transport Act S65, Sentence Substitution
Traffic Law Sentencing Criminal Law Indefinite Disqualification Alcohol Interlock Land Transport Act S65 Sentence Substitution

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jordan Francis Mulligan

Appellant

New Zealand Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Sentence / High Court Hearing (avl) Judgment on Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the indefinite disqualification under s65 Land Transport Act 1998 was lawful or appropriate
  2. 2 Whether an alcohol interlock sentence should be imposed in place of indefinite disqualification

Ratio Decidendi

The Court concluded the indefinite disqualification under s65 was not appropriate and quashed it, substituting an alcohol interlock sentence under the relevant provisions of the Land Transport Act 1998.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence quashed and substituted

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Indefinite disqualification under s65 of the Land Transport Act 1998 quashed