This unique defence has been wasting public and court resources for some time
Police have successfully appealed after a drink-driver had his case dismissed because he was too drunk when he rejected having a lawyer.
Darin John Buck had a charge of driving with excess breath alcohol dismissed in February by Judge Peter Butler.
Buck’s unusual defence was based on being so drunk that not only was he unable to drive, he was unable to understand the legal process.
He failed an initial breath test after being stopped on State Highway 2, Upper Hutt, in January 2013. He was taken to the police station where he spoke to a lawyer on the phone but could not deliver enough breath to do the second breath test.
A blood test was proposed so Buck said he wanted to consult a lawyer again, in accordance with his rights, but this time he could not get a lawyer on the phone.
He rang three lawyers but none answered.
Buck then told police to just “get on with it”, waiving his right to a lawyer.
Sometimes I despair when judges make rulings. Don’t they think ahead? It set the precedent that if you were sufficiently drunk, you aren’t responsible for your decision making. Any idea where that would have ended up? Read more »