[ad_1]
supplied
Thousands of prosecutions are at stake for appealing to the advice that police give to drunk drivers
A rare hearing in the Court of Appeal on advice given to drunk drivers about getting a blood test has started in a packed public gallery.
It is only the second time the Attorney General has requested a review, and the outcome could affect more than 2,000 drunk driving cases currently in court.
The police are obliged to tell the driver several things. At the moment they warn that a failed breath test could be used as evidence in a process against him.
However, the legislation says that the motorist must be warned that the test could result in a conviction.
READ MORE:
* Court of Appeal will review police script after DUI cases are dismissed
* Driving under the influence of alcohol: Attorney general seeks review after judges dismiss cases
* Driving while intoxicated: 85,000 could seek to appeal convictions on the word on the police form
* One of New Zealand’s worst alcoholic beverage drivers is back behind bars for 22nd conviction
* Eighteen inmates released after the court determines that Corrections did not take into account the time served in custody
The problem started in district court, where a judge found that the police had not followed the law.
In Superior Court, the questions were whether the District Court judges were correct in determining that the police had failed to comply with the law and if, if not, the breath test evidence should have been dismissed.
Stuff understands that many more cases have been dismissed and others have been suspended until the review is carried out.
Ross Giblin / Stuff
Drivers tested in a drunk driver operation. The issue under consideration relates to the police script that is read to drivers who fail a breath test. It all comes down to one word. (File photo)
In August, some 2,254 cases awaited the outcome of the hearing.
The issue under consideration relates to the police script that is read to motorists who fail a breath test. It all comes down to one word.
The legislation says that if the motorist is not warned, the breath test cannot be used as evidence.
Several judges have found that there is a big difference between the words “prosecution” and “conviction” and have thrown out the charges of driving under the influence.
Attorney General Charlotte Brooke’s attorney said Thursday that police were required to give certain information to the motorist, but there was no formula for doing so.
He said motorists could easily wonder if they choose to have a blood test – a charge other than excess breath alcohol under the law – could be prosecuted for both.
The hearing is expected to last one day.
