The High Court has put a block on the police practice of making drink-drivers pay for a doctor to take their blood samples.
The ruling by Justice Christine French is a win for Christchurch barrister Andrew Bailey that might mean urgent changes had to be made to the legislation, Christchurch Court News website reported.
His client was convicted of drink-driving in March in District Court.
He was fined $600 and ordered to pay court costs of $130, medical expenses of $102.60 and an analyst fee of $93, and disqualified from driving for six months.
But Mr Bailey took an appeal to the High Court over whether the District Court judge had the jurisdiction to order payment of the medical expenses.
The order to pay medical expenses has been routinely imposed all over the country for many years.
"There was some argument before me as to whether it was fair and reasonable for defendants to have to pay the medical expenses when all they were doing was exercising their statutory rights to have a blood sample taken," said Justice French.
Such policy matters were for Parliament to consider.
"The District Court is a creature of statute, and it follows the power to make the order must be derived from a statutory provision."
The police practice had been to pay the doctor's fee for taking the sample, but if the sample showed the driver over the limit reimbursement from the offender was always sought.
She ruled that legislation covered only the payment of the analyst's fee, but did not give jurisdiction to cover other medical expenses.
She also ruled that the medical expenses could not be classed as reparations or a fine. The appellant had argued that a fine was not meant to reimburse the police for their costs and a person should not be punished for exercising their statutory right to seek a blood sample.
At the hearing, Mr Bailey gave the example that in drug cases the offenders were not expected to pay the police surveillance operations.
Justice French said a deeming provision - similar to the one used to collect the analyst's fee - was needed.
"There is no such provision and accordingly no jurisdiction to order payment of the medical expenses. The appeal is therefore allowed and the order to pay medical expenses quashed."
