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.