[ad_1]
Jo McKenzie-McLean / Stuff
An Alexandra woman was released without conviction for drunk driving in a motorized refrigerated container.
An Alexandra woman who was “incited” to take a motorized reefer on a drunken little ride while celebrating her 40th birthday has avoided conviction.
Anna Lea Pilgrim pleaded guilty in Alexandra District Court Wednesday to driving a motor vehicle on a residential street in the city of Otago while almost four times exceeding the legal limit for driving under the influence of alcohol.
Pilgrim was captured on May 9 with 894 micrograms of alcohol per liter of breath while driving the vehicle about 100 meters. The legal limit is 250 mcg.
“Is this a Central Otago problem?” Judge John MacDonald asked when defense attorney Megan McCrostie said there had been similar cases of use of a motorized reefer container.
READ MORE:
* Otago Woman Denies Drunk Driving in Motorized Refrigerated Container
* Truck driver retains license after drunk driving in motorized reefer container
* Truck driver’s career is on the line after ‘a little fun’ driving a motorized reefer
Last year, Southland truck driver Daniel William Hurley escaped losing his license after police caught him in a motorized reefer while drunk.
Unlike Hurley, who had a breath alcohol level in excess of 540 mcg, Pilgrim’s high reading made an alcohol blockage mandatory upon conviction.
In New Zealand, alcohol interlocks are a sentencing option for judges for repeat drunk drivers or high-level drunk drivers.
McCrostie argued that the consequences of a conviction were out of proportion to the seriousness of the crime.
“An interlocking sentence is a serious and very restrictive sanction.
“The crime is at the lower end of the scale: the vehicle used in the commission of the crime was a motorized refrigerated container.”
A conviction would have a “devastating” impact on Pilgrim’s new car cleaning business, which required it to drive customers’ vehicles, he said.
“I was traveling at a maximum of 5-10 km / h and could barely make the vehicle move. She was traveling to the left edge of the road and there was no traffic on her.
“She would never get behind the wheel of a typical car or vehicle for this type of infraction. If I had known that a motorized reefer was considered a motor vehicle under the law, I would never have used it. “
Police viewed the impact on his business, his only source of income, as speculative, but the consequences were “real,” McCrostie said.
“Basically, she would not be able to operate her business during the 12 months of the deadlock period. His business would fail as a result of a conviction. “
Judge MacDonald said a freezing sentence for alcohol was “a step too far.”
“I didn’t expect to be arguing about someone driving in a motorized reefer, but here I am … the circumstances are very unusual.”
He warned that Pilgrim’s case should not be treated as a precedent and told her that while it was “stupid behavior, she” obviously didn’t think too much about what was really involved. “
Pilgrim was discharged without a conviction, disabled from driving for a month in addition to the 28 days she had already been disabled, and ordered to pay $ 500 to a charity of her choice.
“I don’t want to see any more about motorized reefer containers,” the judge said.
