Criminal defence shaped by decades on the other side.

Family violence is the broadest area of criminal work in New Zealand, and it is where Piers Blomfield — who leads the criminal practice at chambers — has spent most of his career. The charges run from common assault and male assaults female through to threatening to kill, breach of a protection order, injuring with intent, and the s189A strangulation offence. Many files involve more than one charge from a single incident, often with a protection order sitting over the top.

The Sentencing Act 2002 treats family violence as an aggravating feature in its own right, and the courts now look at the wider history of offending against the same complainant rather than treating each incident in isolation. That approach changes how disclosure has to be read, how prior incidents are challenged, and how submissions are framed at sentencing.

We act for both respondents and complainants. Years as a specialist family violence prosecutor mean we know how the Crown builds these cases — what the police look for, what the file usually contains, and where the evidence tends to be thinner than it first appears.

Section 189A of the Crimes Act 1961 was introduced in December 2018 to capture strangulation and suffocation as a standalone offence, with a maximum penalty of 7 years' imprisonment. The offence is committed where a person intentionally or recklessly impedes another person's breathing or blood circulation by applying pressure to the throat or neck, or by blocking the nose or mouth. Loss of consciousness is not required — momentary pressure can be enough.

The leading authority on aggravating factors is Ackland v Police [2019]: an intimate relationship between the parties, accompanying threats, loss of consciousness, multiple incidents in the same episode or over time, and any breach of an existing protection order. Each pushes the starting point higher.

For lower-end matters, sentencing typically starts in the range of 6 months to 2 years' imprisonment, with home detention available in suitable cases. This is a recognised part of our criminal practice and one of the charges we see most often alongside other family violence offending.

Sentencing in New Zealand is governed by the Sentencing Act 2002. The court is required to weigh the statutory purposes — holding the offender accountable, denouncing the conduct, deterring the offender and others, protecting the community, providing for the victim, and assisting rehabilitation and reintegration — alongside the principles of consistency and the least restrictive outcome appropriate to the offending.

The available sentence types run from a fine or community work, through supervision, intensive supervision, community detention and electronic monitoring, to home detention and imprisonment. In the right case, a discharge without conviction under s106 is available where the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence.

Sentencing is where careful preparation makes the largest difference. Well-drafted written submissions, character references that say something specific, evidence of rehabilitation already underway, and a credible plan going forward routinely move outcomes a step down the ladder.

Restorative justice in New Zealand sits inside a clear legislative framework — the Sentencing Act 2002 requires the court to take any RJ outcomes into account, and the Victims' Rights Act 2002 gives victims a right to be offered an RJ process where one is available. In practice, a referral leads to an assessment, separate preparation meetings, and then a facilitated conference between the offender, the victim, and support people.

On the defence side our role is to make sure the process is genuinely voluntary and properly prepared, that nothing said in the conference creates fresh legal exposure, and that the outcome agreement is realistic. A sincere RJ outcome can produce a meaningful sentence reduction and, just as importantly, a measure of closure for the victim that the court process on its own rarely delivers.

RJ is not a fit for every case. It is generally unsuitable for the most serious offending, and where there is a power imbalance or any sign of coercion the process should not proceed. Used in the right matter, it remains one of the most effective tools in the system.

New Zealand sets the adult breath and blood alcohol limits at 250 micrograms per litre of breath and 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood — the 0.05% BAC level — with a zero alcohol limit for drivers under 20. Above the criminal threshold the matter proceeds in the District Court, and the police rely almost entirely on the evidential breath or blood result.

That reliance is also where the technical defences live. The statutory warnings and procedures around the breath and blood testing process are precise, and procedural defects — incorrect warnings, problems with the right to elect a blood test, issues with the testing officer's certification — have overturned convictions. The first thing we do on any drink-driving file is read the procedure carefully against the disclosure.

Penalties scale quickly with prior history and reading. Mandatory disqualification applies on conviction in most cases, and a second or subsequent qualifying offence within five years triggers the mandatory alcohol interlock regime under s65A of the Land Transport Act 1998. Limited licences and s94 Land Transport Act applications can soften the disqualification consequences in qualifying cases.

A Limited Licence allows a person who is otherwise disqualified from driving to drive in defined circumstances — typically for work, education, or an essential family purpose. The application is made to the District Court, and the test is extreme hardship to the applicant or undue hardship to another person. Affidavit evidence is required, almost always including an affidavit from the employer setting out why driving is essential to keeping the role.

Section 94 of the Land Transport Act 1998 is a separate and underused provision. In qualifying cases the court can substitute the mandatory disqualification with a sentence of community work and supervision, leaving the person's licence intact. It does not apply to the mandatory disqualifications under s63 or s65, the alcohol interlock regime, or s103 bans — but in the cases where it is available the practical effect is significant.

Both applications turn on the strength of the supporting evidence and how the application is framed. Done well, they preserve employment, family arrangements, and the path back to a clean driving record.

The Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 lets eligible people lawfully say they have no criminal record for most everyday purposes. Eligibility is automatic where the person has no excluded offences on their record, has not been convicted of anything in the last 7 years, has never received a custodial sentence, and has paid all fines and completed all sentences imposed.

Once the scheme applies, the conviction does not need to be disclosed for most jobs, insurance, or credit applications, and most agencies are not entitled to ask. It is a genuinely useful piece of legislation for people whose offending is well behind them.

There are real exceptions. Roles working with children or vulnerable people, immigration matters, and certain professional and occupational licences sit outside the scheme — disclosure is still required there, and the conviction will still appear on the relevant vetting check.