Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 47

Thread: Lawyer escapes drink-driving charge

  1. #1
    Join Date
    13th December 2008 - 18:22
    Bike
    Your mom
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    3,901

    Lawyer escapes drink-driving charge

    " A prominent Westport lawyer has escaped a fourth drink-driving charge, despite being over the limit, because he was breath-tested on private property.

    Doug Taffs, 59, was caught by police on August 19 with a breath-alcohol reading of 480 micrograms.

    Police attempted to pull him over about 200 metres from his house but followed him on to his property when he failed to stop for their flashing lights.

    Judge Michael Behrens dismissed the charge because the police conducted the breath test on private property.

    ''I find that New Zealand citizens have an expectation that police will not come on to their land and randomly breath-test them,'' he said.

    ''I believe the evidence was improperly obtained.''

    Senior Constable Donald Abbey and Constable Greg Sherie had been driving to Granity when they spotted a Land Rover travelling along Fairdown Rd.

    The car had not breached any traffic rules, but Abbey said:''I bet he's come from the pub.''

    They did a U-turn to give a random breath test, but Taffs did not stop.

    He continued up the road about 200m before entering his driveway and parking by his house.

    The police followed the car on to Taffs' property.

    Taffs told the court he never saw the flashing lights, but Sherie said ''any reasonable motorist'' would have seen them.

    The judge said he was not prepared to say Taffs had seen the police lights and believed his ''surprise and concern'' at finding the officers in his driveway was ''genuine''.

    After failing a breath test, Taffs was taken back to the Westport police station, where an evidential breath test confirmed he was over the limit.

    ''When I spoke to the defendant he admitted he had been drinking and I could smell alcohol on his breath,'' Sherie said.

    In conducting the test, the policemen were acting on an ''implied licence'' that entitles them to enter a property and knock at the front door, provided they are there for a lawful purpose.

    If they are asked to leave, they must.

    Sherie said he knew he was on private property but was not asked to leave.

    Judge Behrens ruled that the police did not have the right to test Taffs on his property.

    ''Constable Sherie was intent on beginning breath-testing procedures because the decision to do so had been made before he entered on to Mr Taffs' property. He did not consider whether he could go on to the property or not,'' Judge Behrens said.

    He dismissed the charge, saying public interest did not outweigh privacy, particularly on a police officer's whim ''with absolutely no grounds for a belief ... that a motorist has been driving with excess alcohol on his breath''.

    Taffs declined to comment today, but his lawyer, Pip Hall, was pleased with the outcome.

    ''The judge followed established legal precedent and what it is saying is that the police have no right to gather information in that way," he said.

    Taffs has three drink-driving convictions, including an incident where he hid coins in his mouth in a bid to beat the breath-testing machine.

    After being stopped for drink-driving last year, Taffs was taken back to a police station, where he was found trying to escape by climbing over a back wall.

    He then tried to disengage the breath-testing machine by unplugging its power cable and hiding a cord in the drawer of a filing cabinet.

    Police put the cord back into the machine, but when Taffs took the test, silver coins fell out of his mouth.

    He recorded a blood-alcohol reading of 115 millgrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

    At the time, Taffs said he ''lost the plot'' and had acted ''like a complete prat''."






    I always thought that if a cop sees you operating a motor vehicle on a public road that they can then follow you onto private property for the purposes of a breath test and to check driver license etc. I find it a bit hard to believe that he was allowed to evade the breath test like that.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    17th June 2010 - 16:44
    Bike
    bandit
    Location
    Bay of Plenty
    Posts
    2,885
    Bastard !!! He's a drunk driver who has got off on a technicality - now I largely agree with the technicality - police should not be asble to stop drivers "on a whim" .. however he's a known drunk driver and I'm not sure that he was stopped "on a whim" ... I think testing him and getting him off the road is a good move ..

    He'll get caught - legitimately - because he won't be able to stop himself ... Just hope he gets caught and taken off the road before he kills someone .
    "So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    21st December 2010 - 10:40
    Bike
    Kate
    Location
    Kapiti Commute
    Posts
    2,832
    first reaction is disgust at a drunk driver getting away with it so the writers did a good job. Then further research and you see in the cases where figures are given he was only just over the limits and there is plenty of research to show these are not the people causing the problems it is the ones two to three times the limits. Also he wasn't driving or behaving badly unlike the Wellington cop that pulled the same stunt.
    Now I think the cops recognised the Land Rover and decided there was a chance as they already had this guy in their sights. Wonder what sort of lawyer he is and if his job means he gets up their noses?
    I think the judge was right and sorry better luck next time.
    Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. --- Unknown sage

  4. #4
    Join Date
    2nd December 2009 - 13:51
    Bike
    A brmm, brmm one
    Location
    Upper-Upper Hutt
    Posts
    2,153
    Think the real issue is he's been convicted 3 times, Why is he still allowed to drive???
    I would also question how he's allowed to continue as a lawyer too, but then isn't that the definition of a lawyer "a criminal that defends other criminals in court"
    Science Is But An Organized System Of Ignorance
    "Pornography: The thing with billions of views that nobody watches" - WhiteManBehindADesk

  5. #5
    Join Date
    31st March 2005 - 02:18
    Bike
    CB919, 1090R, R1200GSA
    Location
    East Aucks
    Posts
    10,499
    Blog Entries
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEU View Post
    I always thought that if a cop sees you operating a motor vehicle on a public road that they can then follow you onto private property for the purposes of a breath test and to check driver license etc. I find it a bit hard to believe that he was allowed to evade the breath test like that.
    I thought it was more pursuit related. ie, they initiated the stop prior to him entering private land, and were therefore able to proceed.

    Don't really care if he's just over the limit. The NZ limit is too high already and he's clearly not learning...

    I'm also wondering if the council will do anything over his conduct...
    Quote Originally Posted by Jane Omorogbe from UK MSN on the KTM990SM
    It's barking mad and if it doesn't turn you into a complete loon within half an hour of cocking a leg over the lofty 875mm seat height, I'll eat my Arai.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    21st December 2010 - 10:40
    Bike
    Kate
    Location
    Kapiti Commute
    Posts
    2,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Gremlin View Post
    I thought it was more pursuit related. ie, they initiated the stop prior to him entering private land, and were therefore able to proceed.

    Don't really care if he's just over the limit. The NZ limit is too high already and he's clearly not learning...

    I'm also wondering if the council will do anything over his conduct...
    If the problems are only cause by those at 2 - 3 times the limit then the limit isn't too high and you are just falling for the silly line that the way to fix drunk driving is to lower the limit. The limit is low enough to not be the cause of drunk driving, we've done the lowering the limit thing over the last 2-3 decades and got it and general public understanding to a point where drunk driving is not acceptable and now the trick is to keep public acceptance there, don't over do it and turn people off to the whole subject, and get the real drunks off the road.
    As to the pursuit, what;s good enough for there own is good enough for everyone else. But no the real issue is privacy and your right to some and also protection from over zealous authorities, police, council, SIS, KGB etc. and sometimes this does mean tipsy drivers escape to protect the rights of the rest of us.
    Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. --- Unknown sage

  7. #7
    Join Date
    17th June 2010 - 16:44
    Bike
    bandit
    Location
    Bay of Plenty
    Posts
    2,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve View Post
    Think the real issue is he's been convicted 3 times, Why is he still allowed to drive???
    I would also question how he's allowed to continue as a lawyer too, but then isn't that the definition of a lawyer "a criminal that defends other criminals in court"
    Driving offences are not crimes ... Crimes are defined in the Crimes Act ... I can't remember what the act covering the road rules is .. but it is not the Crimes Act.
    "So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    14th August 2011 - 14:32
    Bike
    Triumph Saint,Triumph Adventurer
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    641
    Double edged sword really.

    First there's "the law" that may be right "but will only ever apply to those that know how to use it.

    And then there's the "Multi time" drunk driver that really needs to be banned for life.

    I just hope the coppers have all their ducks in a row next time,,,and really nail that cunt.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    11th June 2006 - 15:52
    Bike
    Suzuki GSX1250FA, TGB 50cc moped
    Location
    Horowhenua
    Posts
    1,879
    Quote Originally Posted by oneofsix View Post
    If the problems are only cause by those at 2 - 3 times the limit then the limit isn't too high and you are just falling for the silly line that the way to fix drunk driving is to lower the limit. The limit is low enough to not be the cause of drunk driving,


    Yes, 30,0000 drivers were prosecuted for drink driving last year. But only 20 road deaths "involved" drivers between 50-80mg.

    And of those the driver between 50-80mg was the victim as often as the cause.

    And its not valid to assume that the driver would not have made the same mistake if he was below 50mg, as in fact the vast majority of accidents are cause by entirely sober people.

    There is no evidence to suggest that lowering the limit would have any effect at all, as drivers between 50-80mg have exactly the same accident rate as drivers between 0-50mg.

    The 160mg plus driver however, is a different story, and its the very drunk driver who needs to be eliminated from the roads.
    David must play fair with the other kids, even the idiots.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    13th July 2011 - 14:47
    Bike
    A Japper
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    1,259
    "Lawyer escapes drink-driving charge", well why not, the ex Serious Fraud Office Chief Prosecuter got off forgery charges this week even after pleading guilty.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    6th March 2012 - 11:45
    Bike
    VFR
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    543
    Not a big fan of drunk driving myself, but

    The guy hadn't done anything illegal or to suggest he'd been drinking. By the sounds of it, the police simply have him marked as repeat offender. While all well and good, you still can't romp onto the fullas property to test him. Especially since he was just barely over.

    Judge was right to toss this one.

    Im sure the five-oh will get him next time

    In the interest of further education, exactly how do you guys measure inebriation? Or how does it compared to Blood Alcohol Content? Legal limit back home was .08%. Always used to dealing with precentages. How do/does microns compare? Trusty google is letting me down And what kind of penalties do you guys peddle for drunk driving? I'm sure I can find out what the NZTA will tell me, but in my experience thus far what the NZTA will tell you and what actually happens tend to be 2 very different things.

    I rarely drink, and definitely won't drink and drive, so questions are largely academic

  12. #12
    Join Date
    31st March 2005 - 02:18
    Bike
    CB919, 1090R, R1200GSA
    Location
    East Aucks
    Posts
    10,499
    Blog Entries
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by oneofsix View Post
    If the problems are only cause by those at 2 - 3 times the limit then the limit isn't too high and you are just falling for the silly line that the way to fix drunk driving is to lower the limit. The limit is low enough to not be the cause of drunk driving, we've done the lowering the limit thing over the last 2-3 decades and got it and general public understanding to a point where drunk driving is not acceptable and now the trick is to keep public acceptance there, don't over do it and turn people off to the whole subject, and get the real drunks off the road.
    Ok, I don't believe that simply lowering the limit will magically fix the problem. It doesn't work for anything (speed limits on roads, dog licencing etc). Those that break the law will continue to do so.

    However, at 80mg you're actually pretty intoxicated and your judgement is impaired. That's what I have a problem with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jane Omorogbe from UK MSN on the KTM990SM
    It's barking mad and if it doesn't turn you into a complete loon within half an hour of cocking a leg over the lofty 875mm seat height, I'll eat my Arai.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    4th October 2009 - 09:24
    Bike
    Suzuki GSX S1000
    Location
    Bay Of Plenty
    Posts
    730
    Quote Originally Posted by Road kill View Post
    Double edged sword really.

    First there's "the law" that may be right "but will only ever apply to those that know how to use it.

    And then there's the "Multi time" drunk driver that really needs to be banned for life.

    I just hope the coppers have all their ducks in a row next time,,,and really nail that cunt.
    This is a big problem IMO. You can ban them all you like but it doesn't seem to stop them getting pissed and driving.
    Short of locking them up for life or cutting their hands off, I dont know how it can be stopped.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    3rd May 2005 - 11:51
    Bike
    XR200
    Location
    Invercargill - Arrowtn
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Banditbandit View Post
    Bastard !!! He's a drunk driver who has got off on a technicality - now I largely agree with the technicality - police should not be asble to stop drivers "on a whim" ..
    The police have been able to do random stops since 1982 - they don't need a reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve View Post
    I would also question how he's allowed to continue as a lawyer too, but then isn't that the definition of a lawyer "a criminal that defends other criminals in court"
    I agree. His behaviour is disreputable and its highly likely he was censured and fined by the Law Society for the last episode. He'll probably face a further complaint over this.

    The trouble is a person has to be pretty bad before they get disbarred because that takes away their livelihood. Plus this behaviour is not directly related to his work.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    3rd May 2005 - 11:51
    Bike
    XR200
    Location
    Invercargill - Arrowtn
    Posts
    1,395

    Doctrine of Fresh Pursuit

    Frankly I'd have thought he was a goner but am no expert in criminal law. The doctrine of fresh pursuit over-rides the private property protections but only if the offender is fleeing or knows they are being pursued. In this case this jerk managed to raise reasonable doubt that he saw the police car.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •