New Zealand Law
Have New Zealand Law Questions? Ask a Lawyer Online.
I am just looking at this
The issue to me seems to be whether there has been reasonable compliance with the requirements of section 64 Land Transport Act. This will depend on whether as you observe, whether the breath screening device was readily available. The Birchler case is a tangled web because this actually was sent back for a hearing in the District Court, and I am unsure if he was then convicted
In paragraph 19 of the case, the court talks about two issues, the first being proof of compliance with the necessary steps, and the use of section 64 to dispense with the need for strict compliance. The second issue is whether the evidence is admissible because of breaches of the Evidence Act and possibly of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So in your case you will need to carefully look at the police notes about what happened when they first stopped you, but did not have the necessary breath screening device. The issue will be whether they were able to require you to accompany them, and whether you received the appropriate warnings are your rights under the New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act. Then you will need to consider whether there has been reasonable compliance with the requirements of the act.
A breach of the Bill of Rights would be something like failing to advise you of the right to ring the lawyer once you were detained by the police. That has happened in some of the cases as you will read.
Whether the breath screening device was readily available would be a question of fact. In a country area, this would have to be considered in the light of what is a difficult distance, and something like half an hour away may not be considered unreasonable. It can depend on factors like available manpower and other police incidents taking place at the same time. If they just could not be bothered, and it was readily available, they may have an issue.
The issue of having a drink after you stopped driving has been raised in a reasonable number of cases, but requires pretty good evidence. It would mean someone independent watching you have a drink. It generally does not succeed as a defence, but is sometimes used as special circumstances to justify no disqualification.