---
title: "Section 94 — community sentence in place of disqualification | Wakatipu Chambers"
description: "Section 94 of the Land Transport Act 1998 gives the District Court a tool that surprises a lot of people: in the right circumstances, the Court can substitute a mandatory disqualification with community work or supervision."
url: https://barristers.net.nz/services/criminal-law/s94-land-transport/
---
# Section 94 — community sentence in place of disqualification
> Section 94 of the Land Transport Act 1998 gives the District Court a tool that surprises a lot of people: in the right circumstances, the Court can substitute a mandatory disqualification with community work or supervision.
Section 94 is not a backdoor around disqualification — it is a narrow statutory power, and the Court has to be satisfied that further disqualification would be inappropriate. Done properly, it can save somebody's job and keep a family functioning. Done badly, it wastes the only shot you have at sentencing.
## What Section 94 does

Section 94 of the Land Transport Act 1998 allows a Court, in very specific circumstances, to substitute a mandatory driving disqualification with a community-based sentence — typically community work, or supervision (or intensive supervision where available).

Courts use the section to avoid extremely long or successive disqualifications that disproportionately harm individuals — particularly where losing a licence would cost someone their job or wreck a family's caregiving arrangements.

## When the section applies

Two threshold matters need to be satisfied. The driver must have been previously disqualified — even just once — and the Court must be persuaded that a further disqualification would be inappropriate.

- The nature of the offence and the offender
- How effective previous disqualifications have been
- The personal impact of renewed disqualification, e.g. job loss
- The public interest
- Whether a community-based sentence is more suitable

## When Section 94 does not apply

There are firm statutory exclusions. The section is not available where:

- Section 63 or 65 applies (s65 imposes mandatory indefinite disqualification for certain repeat alcohol or drug offences)
- An alcohol interlock sentence has been ordered under section 65AC
- The offender is barred from a Limited Licence under section 103

## Not just for cycle-of-reoffending cases

A point that often gets missed: in *Timbrell v NZ Police* [2018], the Court confirmed that section 94 is not limited to offenders caught in an endless cycle of disqualifications. It can be applied more broadly where it is just and appropriate. That widens the door for second-offence cases where a further disqualification would be a disproportionate response.

## How an application runs

The mechanics are straightforward, but the evidence is everything.

- The offender pleads guilty or is convicted
- A section 94 application is made at sentencing
- Evidence — typically affidavits — is filed to support hardship or employment-loss arguments
- If granted, the Court orders community work or supervision instead of further disqualification, alongside any other appropriate penalties (fines, costs)

## Who Section 94 suits

It tends to be used by people who would suffer disproportionate hardship from another disqualification — usually for work or caregiving reasons. It is available on a second offence, not just a third or fourth, where it is a fair response.

It is not available for first-time disqualification cases, and it is not available where the stricter sections (63, 65, 65AC, 103) take it off the table. The first job, before anything else, is to confirm those exclusions do not catch your case.
Part of: [Criminal Law](https://barristers.net.nz/services/criminal-law)