KEY POINTS:
Zahir Mohamed won't say how much he charges to get "police officers, doctors, lawyers, accountants - you name it" off drink-driving charges.
He will say he's the most expensive drink-drive expert in town. No wonder, when you consider his success rate. "My average is around eight out of
10. They are usually drunk."
Mohamed says most of his clients - including some whose breath tests are four times the legal limit - cannot tell him anything to help their case.
But after 30 years of dealing solely with drink-driving, this lawyer, who has 119 Ugandan murder cases to his name, has the New Zealand system nailed. "It is the weakness of the police that we rely on... They just can't do a thing right... When they carry out the tests they don't do it properly. It's purely because they are human beings."
Police mistakes as silly as not synchronising watches with breath-test machines, filling in notebooks incorrectly or getting serial numbers mixed up on documents have seen drink-drivers walk away, Mohamed says.
So, does he ever worry that he could be responsible for helping drunk drivers get back on the roads?
"Let's face it, they are a danger to my own children... But it's my job."
Mohamed says his experience means he charges more than any other lawyer in Auckland - but drink-driving cases never really appealed to him when he started.
The decision was made for him, in a sense - Mohamed won two cases in a row while working for a firm and was told to keep taking them on, or be fired. "It's a horrible thing, really."
One recent client failed his first breath test at a Tamaki Drive checkpoint, then allegedly blew a 636mg reading on his evidential breath test. The limit is 400mg.
But the case was thrown out of court in February because the constable who processed him made mistakes. The constable said in evidence that he used an Intoxilyzer 5000, but the serial number matched a different type of machine.
Although two lawyers were contacted that night, the constable also neglected to tell the driver - who was confused about whether to do a blood test - that he could call his lawyer again. The driver was only the second the constable had dealt with.
Court records said senior police told him afterwards to be more careful with his notes.
Sergeant Roger Stevens has been prosecuting drink-driving cases for 18 years and is sceptical of Mohamed's trumpeted eight out of 10 wins. "I don't think he has that success rate with me," Stevens says.
"But when it comes down to sheer technicalities, that's always a difficulty - although those technicalities have been whittled down over the years with the legislation, and there are not that many avenues now for defence."
Stevens says police prosecutors are very well schooled in drink-driving cases and any mistakes are due to "the pressures of time. You've got to be quick enough, or sharp enough, to pick up on those things - or the defence doesn't have to do anything," he says. "We still have nothing to be ashamed of [regarding] our prosecution record."
Inspector Heather Wells, Auckland City Road Policing Manager, says mistakes are rare and caused by human error. "You might write down a wrong number... Anybody can do that. I would not read that [police mistakes] are that high at all.
"There would be very few [that] get off, really." Wells says it is frustrating that although recidivist and youth offending is increasing, some drunk drivers walk away from convictions on technicalities.
"This is the way lawyers make their money. It's not to say the person is innocent."
CASE ONE
Keri-Ann Carnie, 28, sales representative, from Mangere Bridge
Carnie bowed her head in Auckland District Court on Wednesday as the duty solicitor explained how sorry she was for driving drunk - again.
Carnie, in a beige coat and white scarf, pleaded guilty but said she'd had only a "couple of glasses of red wine" when police pulled her over on Symonds St in April.
A friend was killed by a drunk driver two weeks ago, the court heard. Her solicitor said she was "very remorseful... she realises very well what she should not have done".
But Carnie's breath test that night showed she had 946mg of alcohol per litre of breath.
Judge Cunningham pointed out that was about two-and-a-half times the legal limit. "I would be very surprised if you had two glasses of red wine; it would suggest to me that it was at least twice that amount if not more," she told Carnie. "It really makes me worry about your alcohol consumption, young lady. That's something for you to reflect on."
Carnie was convicted, disqualified from driving for six months, and owes fines and costs of about $700.
The judge warned that if she kept offending, she could be looking at jail.
CASE TWO
Robyn Varie Radovanovich, 42, from Point England
Radovanovich was driving home from a Thursday night birthday party when she smashed into a parked car on Maybury St, close to her home. It was 9.45pm.
A police breath test showed she was more than three times over the legal limit.
The reading - of 1224mg - was one of the highest the Auckland District Court judge could remember.
On Wednesday she pleaded guilty to that charge, and one of failing to accompany police for a blood test.
Wearing a white top and jeans Radovanovich told the court she had been convicted of drink driving about 17 years ago and she was "very apologetic and embarrassed for her offending".
But Judge Cunningham said it was "not very surprising that you ended up in a car accident, and very fortuitous that someone wasn't injured or killed".
Because of the accident, and her very high reading, Radovanovich was fined $1000 plus court costs of $130.
She was also disqualified from driving for six months.
CASE THREE
Partner in top law firm
Police said the man was stopped at a checkpoint in Parnell early on a Saturday morning, with more than double the legal limit of alcohol in his blood.
But charges were dismissed on Thursday because of a break in the police chain of evidence - the prosecuting sergeant, Roger Stevens, told his colleagues the crucial error was so minor it "could have [been] a typo". The man has been a partner at a top law firm for almost 20 years.
Police alleged that at 1.42am on Saturday, July 15, he failed an initial breath test administered by Constable Li Ying Cai.
After that first test, "I noticed a very strong smell of alcohol from his breath," Cai told Auckland District Court last week. "I also observed his eyes were glazed and his speech was slurred."
The failed test meant the man had more than the legal limit of 400mcg (micrograms) of alcohol on his breath, Cai said.
She said she took him to a booze bus on Hobson St, read him his rights and waited half an hour in line to do an evidential breath test - but a power cut ruined the results.
The man allegedly started asking for water. Cai said every time he asked, police gave him a 500ml bottle full. She said he drank five of those in an hour.
"It really surprised me," the young policewoman told court.
Cai organised a blood test for the man and handed the sample in for analysis thinking she had done everything right.
But while giving evidence in court she realised that the documented numbers on the labels of the sample she handed in, and the one she got back, did not match.
She gaped and stumbled for words.
Prosecutor, Sergeant Roger Stevens, immediately knew the man sitting behind him was going to walk away with an unblemished record.
"What it means is game, set and match," he told Cai. "Your case is flawed... Unfortunately, it's a break in the chain of evidence."
After Judge Burns dismissed the charges, Stevens told the Herald on Sunday the case was "just one of those things".
The man commented later: "I was surprised to be charged, as I was confident I was under the limit.
"The mistake made over my blood sample now explains what must have happened."
