Criminal Law · Deep dive

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.

Continue reading

Related on criminal law.

Common Questions

Criminal Law FAQs.

A few criminal law-specific answers. See the full FAQ →

Should I talk to the police if they want to interview me?
Generally, no — exercise your right to silence and ask to speak with a lawyer first. There are limited exceptions (for example, providing identifying information or alibi details). Anything you say can be used against you, and what feels like a friendly chat is rarely just a chat. Contact chambers before the interview if at all possible — urgent criminal matters are treated as a priority.
What is the difference between a Judge Alone Trial and a jury trial?
A Judge Alone Trial (JAT) is heard by a District Court judge sitting without a jury — the judge decides both the law and the facts. A jury trial — typically in the High Court for serious matters, or the District Court for some Category 3 offences — has a jury of 12 deciding the facts, while the judge rules on the law and the sentence. JATs are usually quicker and cheaper, and can be the right call for technical defences. The choice between the two is a strategic decision and one of the first conversations we have.
What is a section 189A strangulation charge?
Strangulation, codified in section 189A of the Crimes Act 1961 (introduced December 2018), is the offence of intentionally or recklessly impeding another person's breathing or blood circulation by applying pressure to the throat or neck, or blocking the nose or mouth. It carries a maximum penalty of 7 years' imprisonment. Aggravating factors set out in Ackland v Police [2019] include offending in an intimate relationship, accompanying threats, loss of consciousness, multiple incidents, and breach of protection orders. This is a recognised area of our criminal practice.
What is the Clean Slate Act and do I qualify?
The Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 lets people with minor criminal histories avoid disclosing them in most situations — once they have gone seven years without a new conviction, served no custodial sentence, completed all sentences and fines, and have no excluded offence types. There are exceptions: roles working with children or vulnerable people, immigration applications, and certain professional licences may still require full disclosure.

Make an Enquiry

Tell us briefly about your matter and we'll direct your enquiry to the right barrister at Wakatipu Chambers.

Book a Free Call +64 22 068 5117
Get in touch → Call