New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Drink-driving

Legal area

Court

22 Nov 2023

SONG v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 3324

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3324
Court

High Court

In the absence of compelling or expert evidence showing a real and appreciable risk that a drink-driving conviction would cause cancellation or inability to obtain the TTPS visa or temporary visas (Australia, USA, UK), and given that the cited family and business harms were speculative or ordinary consequences of conviction, the District Court judge did not err in declining a discharge; the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.
17 Oct 2023

LEE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2906

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2906
Court

High Court

The District Court erred by failing to apply the s 13 presumption in favour of a fine and by not making the requisite s 14 finding that the appellant lacked means to pay; the imposition of community work and intensive supervision was therefore wrong in principle and the substitution of community work for remitted fines was invalid because the statutory procedures in the Summary Proceedings Act were not followed; the correct sentence is a $600 fine and the remitted $5,000 fines are restored.
10 Oct 2023

TOVI v POLICE [2023] NZHC 2822

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2822
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal because the District Court did not err in principle: given the appellant's prior serious drink-driving conviction, the circumstances of the offending, the lack of evidence of rehabilitation and the statutory framework under s57AA, a fine would not meet the purposes of sentencing (accountability, denunciation and deterrence), so the community work sentence and interlock disqualification were appropriate and not manifestly excessive.
28 Aug 2023

SAYERS v NZ POLICE [2023] NZHC 2362

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2362
Court

High Court

The High Court affirmed the District Court's assessment that the offending was in the low to moderate range given a significantly high blood alcohol reading (146 mg/100ml) and that the direct and indirect consequences of conviction (including ability to obtain a limited licence, continued volunteer work and stigma) were not out of all proportion to that gravity; appeal dismissed.
11 Aug 2023

CHEYMAN LEE MITCHELL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZSC 104

Citation

[2023] NZSC 104
Court

Supreme Court

Section 46(1)(b) does not bar conviction on the s32(1)(b) zero‑licence charge because the facts making each offence punishable were materially different: one required proof that breath alcohol exceeded 400 micrograms per litre, the other required proof the driver held a zero alcohol licence and drove with alcohol present. The CPA requires substantial factual identity (often expressed as a common punishable act) to trigger the plea; that threshold was not met here, so dual convictions were lawful.
6 Mar 2023

WAHED v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 407

Citation

[2023] NZHC 407
Court

High Court

The High Court held the trial judge erred in assessing contested oral evidence and in failing to permit relevant questioning, and that on a fair reading of the evidence (including appellant's limited English and repeated questions) the appellant had effectively requested a blood test within the statutory 10-minute period; those errors created a real risk the trial outcome was affected and therefore constituted a miscarriage of justice warranting quashing of the conviction and sentence.
29 Nov 2022

JOHN v POLICE [2022] NZHC 3143

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3143
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal to discharge without conviction: the offending was a moderately serious example of drink-driving (high breath alcohol and crash) and, although deportation and other immigration consequences were likely, those consequences were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending; therefore a discharge without conviction was not justified under s107.
23 Nov 2022

FYFE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 3065

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3065
Court

High Court

Having considered s 94 afresh the High Court concluded there were no special circumstances to make mandatory disqualification inappropriate: the offender posed a real risk (very high breath reading and speeding), prior disqualifications had been effective but were neutral, a limited licence was available to mitigate employment hardship, and 100 hours community work combined with the disqualification was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
29 Jul 2022

ILOLAHIA v POLICE [2022] NZHC 1853

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1853
Court

High Court

Although the sentencing judge materially erred by not giving reasons for refusing leave to apply for home detention under s 80I, on rehearing the High Court concluded home detention was not appropriate because the appellant had an extensive history of serious repeat drink-driving, had not demonstrated steps towards rehabilitation, and imprisonment was the least restrictive appropriate outcome; therefore the 13 months' imprisonment and associated orders stand.
15 Jul 2022

POLICE v COX [2022] NZHC 1695

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1695
Court

High Court

Where both s 65 and s 65AC apply the court must make orders under both provisions: s 65(3A)/(4A) replace only the indefinite disqualification element of a s 65 order with an alcohol interlock sentence but do not remove the mandatory requirement under s 65 that the offender attend an assessment centre; the District Court erred by not so ordering for both respondents.