New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Alcohol interlock

Legal area

Court

22 Aug 2023

HIGGINSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2273

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2273
Court

High Court

The District Court erred in not awarding a discrete discount for rehabilitation, but that error did not render the end sentence manifestly excessive; the four months' home detention (with six months special conditions and an alcohol interlock) was within the established range for a third or subsequent high-reading drink driving offence and varying it would amount to impermissible tinkering. The Sentencing Act s9(3) precluded a discount for voluntary alcohol consumption and there was no demonstrated causative contribution of addiction to the decision to drive in these facts.
28 Jun 2022

LETHAM v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 1514

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1514
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court's 20-month starting point was within range given multiple high-range offences and aggravating circumstances and the 5% discount for prior head injury was within range, but the District Court erred by not converting the sentence to home detention where appropriate and by failing to impose an alcohol interlock order as the alternative to indefinite disqualification under the Land Transport Act, and therefore quashed the imprisonment sentence and substituted a home detention sentence with associated treatment and interlock requirements.
29 Jun 2021

MITCHELL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 1572

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1572
Court

High Court

The court held the appellant's decision to drive was not objectively reasonable because he failed to adequately explore reasonable alternatives (taxi, rideshare, or attending a nearby medical centre), provided no evidence of delay, and offered no satisfactory explanation for his chosen route; accordingly there were no special reasons under s 81 to avoid mandatory disqualification and the District Court sentence was upheld.
31 May 2021

SADLER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZCA 219

Citation

[2021] NZCA 219
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the applicant failed to demonstrate a matter of general or public importance or a miscarriage of justice; the material did not undermine the High Court's findings that counsel had properly advised the appellant and that the police were lawfully on the property; and the sentence imposed was within lawful bounds given the applicant's record and statutory requirements.
16 Mar 2021

GOVERNOR v POLICE [2021] NZHC 525

Citation

[2021] NZHC 525
Court

High Court

s 94(4)(aa) of the Land Transport Act 1998 precludes substitution of a community-based sentence where an alcohol interlock sentence has been ordered and is extant; this interpretation accords with the plain wording and legislative purpose of securing compliance with the interlock regime; accordingly s 94 did not apply and the District Court was entitled to refuse substitution, and the District Court correctly refused a discharge under s 106 because the consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the moderate gravity of the offending.
7 Dec 2020

TURNER v R [2020] NZHC 3213

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3213
Court

High Court

Appeal dismissed; judge did not err in refusing to commute the sentence to home detention because the offending was serious and repeated, the appellant posed a significant risk of reoffending, prior community and rehabilitative measures had been ineffective, and the appellant failed to engage with community work, so imprisonment was the least restrictive sentence that met sentencing purposes.
10 Aug 2020

HALFORD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 2016

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2016
Court

High Court

The Court held the judge did not err in imposing the maximum 12-month supervision because the offender's alcohol dependency, recidivism and community protection needs justified the upper limit; however the judge erred by failing to specify 'special reasons' for not replacing mandatory disqualification, so the indefinite disqualification was quashed and replaced with an alcohol interlock order under s65AC.
30 Jun 2020

BROWN v R [2020] NZHC 1494

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1494
Court

High Court

Section 65AC is the sole statutory power to order an alcohol interlock sentence and it applies only where the specific qualifying criteria in s65AB are satisfied; the court therefore cannot lawfully impose an alcohol interlock sentence in place of mandatory disqualification where those criteria are not met, so the appeal is dismissed.
6 Sept 2019

FALANIKO v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2235

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2235
Court

High Court

Section 129(4)(b) applies because an alcohol interlock is or is to be fitted to the vehicle; therefore the mandatory confiscation could not lawfully be ordered and the District Court's confiscation order was an error and must be quashed.
5 Sept 2019

FALANIKO v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2222

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2222
Court

High Court

The appeal was allowed and the confiscation order set aside because Sentencing Act 2002 s 129(4)(b) prohibits making a confiscation order where an alcohol interlock order is made or available, rendering the confiscation impermissible in the circumstances.