Charged with drink driving – what now?

Civil Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Jul 18 2022
In New Zealand, drink driving is known as driving with excess breath/blood alcohol, or an EBA offence. The penalties that apply to EBA offences vary depending on the age of the offender, the level of breath/blood alcohol detected, and whether there has been previous offending of the same or a similar kind.
Adults

The legal limit for adults (over 20 years old) is 400 micrograms (mcg) of alcohol per litre of breath, or 80 milligrams (mg) of alcohol per 100 millilitres (ml) of blood. If a person’s breath or blood alcohol level exceeds these limits, this is a criminal offence and carries the risk of conviction. Criminal convictions result in a criminal record which can have implications for employment and travel. It should be noted that breath/blood alcohol readings that are less than these limits can still amount to an infringement offence, incurring a fine of $200 and 50 demerit points.

In the case of a first or second EBA offence, the Police can elect to prosecute. If convicted, an offender could be jailed for up to three months or fined up to $4,500. The offender will automatically be disqualified from driving for a minimum period of six months. For first time offenders, imprisonment is unlikely and a fine will usually be proportionate to how far over the limit they were (e.g. EBA of 500 mcg equals a fine of $500).

In the case of a third or subsequent EBA offence, the penalties become more serious. A repeat offender can be jailed for up to two years, or fined up to $6000, and will be automatically disqualified from driving for at least one year. Custodial sentences are not uncommon for recidivist drink driving.

Youth

For anyone under 20 years of age there is a zero alcohol limit. It is a criminal offence for a person under 20 years old to drive with more than 150 mcg of alcohol per litre of breath, or 30 mg per 100 ml of blood. This offending is treated in the same way as adult offending. A breath alcohol content between 0 and 150 mcg is an infringement offence and will result in a $200 fine and 50 demerit points.

Alcohol Interlock Licence

An offender who has received an EBA conviction within the last five years, or where the breath or blood alcohol reading is particularly high (more than 800 mcg, or 160 mg), will likely be sentenced to an alcohol interlock licence. This means once the period of disqualification is complete, they will need to pay to have their vehicle fitted with an alcohol interlock device for a minimum period of 12 months. This will prevent them from starting their vehicle until they have blown into the device and produced a zero alcohol reading.

Zero Alcohol Licence

Upon successfully completing an alcohol interlock sentence (and in some other limited circumstances), an offender will be eligible to apply for a zero alcohol licence. These licences are imposed for a period of three years, and as the name suggests, do not permit the consumption of any alcohol prior to driving, regardless of age. The three year period does not run concurrent with any period of suspension or disqualification, but begins from the end of this period.

It is important to note that upon the expiry of an interlock or zero alcohol licence, a person will be unlicensed. It will be necessary to go through the usual process of obtaining a new licence, including sitting the theory and practical tests.

Limited Licences

Once convicted of driving with EBA and disqualified from driving, it might be possible to make an application to the court for a limited licence, sometimes referred to as a ‘work licence’. To obtain a limited licence it is necessary to demonstrate disqualification from driving will result in extreme hardship to the applicant, or undue hardship to another (usually an employer or dependent family member). For example, where an applicant is required to drive for work and their disqualification means they will not be able to carry out their job. This could result in undue hardship to the applicant’s employer if they are unable to replace the applicant in their role and are left with no one to carry out the job. Or where other employees are diverted from their roles to cover for the applicant or drive them around, at a cost to the employer. Where it is not viable for an employer to continue employing the applicant as a result of their disqualification, this could result in undue hardship to the applicant’s family in situations where they are financially dependent on them. Undue hardship to family members could also arise where the applicant is the sole or designated caregiver and is required to drive in order to care for dependent family members.

A limited licence will only allow an applicant to drive for a limited purpose, such as for work, and will be subject to conditions including restrictions on the hours, days and area in which they can drive.

For EBA offences, there is a mandatory stand-down period of 28 days from the date of disqualification before the court will consider an application. If a limited licence is required, it is best to get in touch with a lawyer as soon as possible following a conviction to discuss making an application.

Once the period of disqualification has ended, a new licence will need to be obtained, as the old licence will have been cancelled. If the period of disqualification was less than 1 year, then it is simply a matter of applying to have the licence reinstated. If the period of disqualification was more than 1 year, it will be necessary to re-sit the theory and practical licensing tests again in order to requalify for a licence.

The Litigation team at Holland Beckett has experienced criminal lawyers who would be happy to provide advice in relation to EBA charges and assist with making an application for a limited licence. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

AUTHORS

You may also like ...
What protection do you have as a business purchasing goods? Contract and Commercial Law Act
Everyone knows about the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA), which provides a “consumer” with remedies if a business has failed to provide goods or services to a reasonable standard. But what happens if you are a business purchasing goods? The answer is not found in the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993; it is found in the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (the CCLA). The CCLA implies seven conditions and/or warranties in a contract for the sale of goods: right to sell; conformity with description; fitness for purpose; merchantable quality; conformity with samples; rights of examination, and; acceptance. Not every breach of contract allows for rejection, but a trivial breach of a condition does. This means that a buyer can return goods supplied to a seller. Importantly, whether a term is a condition or a warranty depends on the construction of the sale of goods contract. An important implied condition is “fitness for purpose”. This means that goods must be reasonably fit for purpose. But, unlike the CGA, this condition will only apply where the buyer makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and that the goods are of a description that it is in the course of the seller’s business to supply. What this means is that when a buyer of a vehicle makes known to the seller that they will be using a vehicle to tow a caravan, then there is an implied condition that the vehicle is fit for that purpose; towing a caravan. This was the case in Finch Motors v Quinn (No 2) [1980] 2 NZLR 519. Mr Quinn, the buyer, told the seller that he wanted a car for towing a boat on extended trips. The seller, Finch Motors, told Mr Quinn they had the ideal car for the job. Not long after the sale, Mr Quinn used his car to tow the boat when it overheated. This, the Court found, was a breach of the implied condition that goods are fit for purpose. There is also an implied condition that goods are of a “merchantable quality”. This is similar to “acceptable quality” under the CGA. The test for whether goods are of a “merchantable quality” is found in an old case, Taylor v Combiner Buyers [1924] NZLR 627. In that case, the Court asked the following question: Are the goods of such a quality and in such a state and condition as to be saleable in the market, as being goods of that description, to buyers who are fully aware of their quality, state, and condition, and who are buying them for the ordinary purposes for which goods so described are bought in that market? Unlike the CGA, the CCLA allows contracting parties to vary or exclude the implied conditions and/or warranties. This includes fitness for purpose and merchantable quality. To do this, the contract must be clear as to the conditions and/or warranties that it purports to vary or exclude. In Wallis, Son & Wells v Pratt & Haynes [1911] AC 394 (HL), for example, the seller’s terms and conditions stated that there is “no warranty express or implied”. The Court found that this did not exclude implied conditions, only implied warranties. If the seller wanted to exclude the implied conditions, including fitness for purpose and merchantable quality, they had to do so expressly. Holland Beckett has experience advising buyers and sellers. This is a complex area of law and Holland Beckett is available to assist.
Read more
What your Directors and Officers Insurance doesn’t cover
Recent high profile prosecutions under the Health & Safety at Work Act (HSWA) have highlighted limitations of standard insurance cover for corporate directors and officers. Specifically, where criminal prosecutions may result in extensive defence costs for targeted directors or officers.  Typical directors and officers (D&O) insurance will not cover defence costs where the prosecution is based on criminal liability, such as sections 48 and 49 of the HSWA, in the absence of acquittal. What D&O insurance is and what it typically covers New Zealand law places a high standard on a company’s decision makers, i.e.,  its board of directors and senior executives.  A company will typically place D&O insurance to mitigate the risk for such persons.  This covers a range of liabilities and includes compensation for legal claims and defence costs when acting in a governance or senior role. Companies can place D&O insurance for their directors and employees.  However, a company may only effect the insurance if its constitution expressly authorises it (see s 162 of the Companies Act). D&O insurance can include where a person is charged with a breach of director’s duties or an infringement of the Resource Management Act (RMA).  However, this insurance does not, and lawfully cannot, cover all liabilities. Gaps in cover and criminal liability A company cannot effect D&O insurance to cover defence costs where there is criminal liability if the insured is not acquitted.  This is explicit at s 162 of the Companies Act.  Absent other measures, this can leave a defendant  funding their own defence in relation to liability under the HSWA or the RMA. However, a director or employee may place their own insurance personally for defence costs in relation to criminal liability (which includes liability for collusion under the Commerce Act, offences under the RMA and offences under the HSWA).  Taking out personal defence cost cover is worth considering as many of these offences have strict liability, meaning, you can still be found liable for an accidental breach. If you are a director or executive employee of a company with exposure to liability under the RMA, HSWA, Commerce Act or any other statutes that have criminal liability, it might be a good time to consider personal cover.  Or, if you already have D&O insurance, reviewing what you are covered for already. If you would like to discuss anything in relation to D&O insurance, including understanding what your policy says or what cover you might want to consider, contact our Corporate and Finance team.
Read more
Baigent’s Damages
Lawyers are used to talking about historic cases by referring to the main parties to a proceeding.  Names like Crown v Brown and Collins v Smith are common place, even for important cases.  However, in the history of the law there are a handful of cases that are referred to with special names.  Some of these names are descriptive, like the so called Ship Money Case that in many ways triggered the English civil war, while others carry the name of an important participant.  This is the case with the example of Baigent’s case. Legal origins Baigent’s case was an important step in the development of New Zealand’s human right law.  It was the case that first recognised the Courts power to award compensation to people who had been the victim of government actions in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the Bill of Rights).  Its official description is Simpson v Attorney-General, but it has long been called “Baigent’s case”.  The Baigent of Baigent’s care was Mrs Baigent.  Although she had passed away by the time the Court of Appeal released its judgment in July 1994 it was her experience during an unlawful police search that lead the Court of Appeal to confirm that claims for damages for breaching the Bill of Rights were available in New Zealand. Mrs Baigent’s story has a simple beginning.  She was the victim not of a mistaken of identity but of a mistaken address.  A police officer, acting on a tip about a tinny house, mistakenly identified her address as the address of a suspected drug dealer.  A search warrant was issued for the address and the police went to search it.  When the police arrived at Mrs Baigent\'s home she was not there, but her son informed them that they had the wrong address.  He spoke to his sister (a Wellington lawyer) who also explained that the address belonged to Mrs Baigent.  Despite this the police were heard saying “we often get it wrong but while we are here we will have a look around anyway”, and this is exactly what they did.  The police searched the address and found nothing. The Court of Appeal was asked to answer the question of whether Mrs Baigent’s claim for compensation for the unlawful search should be struck out as having no proper legal basis.  Ultimately, the Court found that it was open to New Zealand Courts to give an award of damages for breaches of the Bill of Rights.  Although not required to make a decision in that particular case, President Cooke of the Court of Appeal suggested that an award of something less than $70,000.00 would probably be appropriate.  The Court was never required to decide the question as the matter was (it is understood) confidentially settled some time later.  Despite this, the case has become an important part of New Zealand’s Bill of Right jurisprudence. Baigent’s place Since Baigent’s case there have been dozens of claims for compensation after breaches of the Bill of Rights.  The breaches cover a wide variety of state actions.  Many relate to excessive use of force or degrading treatment by government agencies, like the police or the Department of Corrections.  Others relate to unlawful seizures and breaches of fair trail rights.  The awards that have been given for these claims vary.  The largest – for a criminal defendant who was sentenced to a long prison term for minor offending under the former three strikes law – was $450,000.00.  Other awards have tended to focus on emotional harm and often measure in the thousands or tens of thousands. Baigent’s case and what are often called “Baigent’s damages” are an important part of holding the government to account and upholding the Bill of Rights.  While a range of other remedies exist – for example, declarations that either a particular law does not comply with the Bill of Rights or that government actions have breached the Bills of Rights, and orders to reverse or stay decisions in breach of the Bill of Rights – many of these tools only prevent breaches from continuing.  In cases where the parties have suffered real harm, the availability of financial compensation is the only tool that really exists to remedy what has gone wrong. How we can help Holland Beckett has experience acting for claimants in Baigent’s damages cases resulting in both Court ordered compensation and confidential settlements.  Holland Beckett has also advised government bodies about compliance with the Bill of Rights to ensure damages claims cannot be made. This is a complex area of the law and Holland Beckett is available to assist both in advising people who feel their rights have been breached and agencies that want to ensure they comply with their legal obligations.
Read more

Start typing and press enter to search

Scroll to Top