Police opposed his limited licence. The judge granted it anyway.
- Occupation
- Transport operator
- Court
- Hamilton District Court
- Disqualification reason
- Conviction for driving with excess breath alcohol
- Challenges
- Police opposition, previous disqualification and suspension, previous limited licence
- Outcome
- Application granted
What he was facing
Dean drives for a living. Not incidentally — the job is driving, and losing his licence meant a complete inability to work and to earn an income for his family.
He had blown 690 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath and was convicted of driving with excess breath alcohol and disqualified by the court.
He had a previous conviction for driving with excess breath alcohol from 2019, and had previously lost his licence due to excess demerits in 2024. Following the 2024 suspension he was granted a limited licence, meaning that this was his second time applying.
Why it was difficult
Police opposed the application on public safety grounds under section 103(2)(b) of the Land Transport Act.
Police pointed to the whole picture rather than the single conviction: a pattern of infringements, two previous excess breath alcohol readings, and the fact that he had already been given a limited licence less than two years earlier and had gone on to accumulate more offences. Their position was that it was for the applicant to satisfy a judge he deserved another chance to drive for work — not for Police to consent to it.
They also raised the vehicles. The application asked to cover a number of vehicles and included two heavy trucks. Police were not prepared to see someone with that history behind the wheel of them.
That is a genuinely hard application. It is also the kind most people give up on, because the assumption is that if Police oppose it, it's over.
What we did
Despite Police opposing the application, the final decision is made by the judge. Therefore, we set about work to address all of the Police's objections so that when the judge saw the application it was in the strongest possible position.
We narrowed the application. The two heavy vehicles came out. He kept what he actually needed to do his job and gave up what he didn't, which removed the sharpest edge of the Police concern in a single amendment.
We addressed the history directly. He enrolled in a defensive driving course and an alcohol programme. Not merely as a gesture — as evidence that the pattern Police were pointing to was one he was actively working on.
We kept Police informed throughout. Every amendment was served on Prosecutions with the supporting material, so nothing arrived at court as a surprise. Police described the application itself as sound and well put together, even while maintaining their opposition.
We prepared him to appear himself. He was self-representing, so he went into court knowing what the objection was, what had changed, and what he was being asked to satisfy the judge about.
The outcome
Police did not withdraw their opposition at any stage.
The judge granted the licence anyway.
What this case shows
Police opposition is not the end of an application. It raises the bar, and it means the application has to be built to be argued rather than waved through — but a judge decides, not Prosecutions.
If you have a previous disqualification, a previous limited licence, or you have already been told Police will oppose, that is the situation this process is built for.
