A man who drank two home-brewed beers then drove to Tahunanui Beach for a summer evening walk has avoided conviction on a drink-drive charge. Photo / Tracy Neal
A man who drank two home-brewed beers then drove to Tahunanui Beach for a summer evening walk has avoided conviction on a drink-drive charge. Photo / Tracy Neal
Two beers from his home-brew batch and a drive to the beach on an early summer evening were almost the undoings of a man’s solid career in support services.
The senior figure on an upwards trajectory within a well-respected organisation has been discharged without conviction on a drink-drive charge, whilealso avoiding a disqualification from driving despite previous driving offences as a younger man.
He was said to be “devastated, embarrassed and remorseful” by what was described as a “genuine error of judgement” as opposed to being reckless.
On Tuesday, the man, who was granted permanent name suppression, appeared in the Nelson District Court where defence lawyer Michael Vesty argued the consequences of a conviction would outweigh the gravity of the offending.
A man who drank two home-brewed beers was stopped at a police checkpoint while heading to the beach for an evening walk. He has avoided conviction and a driving disqualification and has also had his name suppressed. Photo / Duncan Brown
Judge Tony Zohrab said that while the offence ranked as minor because of the relatively low breath alcohol level, any drink-drive matter was serious.
“I have to be careful because every case is serious and people behind the wheel when they’ve consumed alcohol are much more likely to be involved in an accident and endanger the safety of others,” Judge Zohrab said.
He also noted the defendant’s previous drink-drive conviction when he was 19, plus careless use and driving while disqualified charges which dated back to the 1990s.
Judge Zohrab said the prior offending would have normally meant a penalty including a fine approaching $500 and a six-month disqualification from driving.
On this occasion, however, the offending was reduced from “moderately serious” to being at the lower end of the scale when considering all circumstances, including that there were no aggravating features such as dangerous driving, the judge said.
Vesty said it was early summer last year when the man was at home, enjoying a couple of home-brewed beers, when he decided to take a drive to Tahunanui Beach for a walk.
He was stopped at a random police checkpoint and an evidential breath test recorded him with 456 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath - almost twice the legal limit but just over the threshold by which criminal charges applied.
The legal limit for drivers aged 20 is 250mcg of alcohol per litre of breath but a person is charged if they record a level above 400mcg.
The court heard how the man was highly regarded in his field of work which was often challenging and difficult.
A disqualification from driving would cause hardship for his employer as he needed to be mobile.
The police, who took a neutral stance on the application for a discharge without conviction, said he would be eligible to apply for a limited licence, but Vesty said any stand-down in the interim might raise suspicion among his colleagues which could lead to his identification.
Judge Zohrab said the real concern was the impact on the man’s career as a specialist in his field, and the potential for a conviction to undermine the good work he had done, and which he continued to do.
The man was described as a trusted person within the organisation for whom he worked and was on the brink of promotion.
Judge Zohrab noted the man’s comments that he felt he had let down the organisation, and the wider profession, and that any publicity would be detrimental to his employer.
“Your reputation in the community is built on trust and dealing with people at their most difficult times and there’s concern that you and the organisation might not be trusted,” Judge Zohrab said.
He also noted an affidavit filed by the organisation’s CEO, who highlighted the nature of the defendant’s work in the community and the high regard in which he was held as an “outstanding clinician who was part of a senior leadership team”.
Judge Zohrab assessed the offence as being at the “top end of minor” and was therefore content to conclude that the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of proportion to the gravity of the offending.
In ordering name suppression, he said publicity would cause extreme hardship. The judge said the organisation did good work for people who needed to have trust and confidence in their specialists.
