Discharge without conviction — driving with excess blood alcohol — careless driving causing injury — consequences of conviction — Sentencing Act 2002, s 106 — Immigration Act 2009, ss 157 & 161 — Zhang v Ministry of Economic Development HC Auckland CRI-2010-404-453, 17 March 2011 — Stewart v Police [2015] NZHC 165 — Jeon v Police [2014] NZHC 66 — Kumar v Police [2015] NZHC 3293 — Karanvir Sunda v NZ Police [2019] NZHC 756 — Abdul Rahim v R [2018] NZCA 182 — R v Qiannan Tang [2019] NZHC 2056 — Minyoung v Police [2019] NZHC 1369 — George v Police [2014] NZHC 1725 — Song v Police HC AK CRI-2010-404-0494, 1 June 2011 — Jeon v Police [2014] NZHC 66 — Amstad v Police HC Auckland CRI-2011-404-000161, 6 September 2011 — Taavili v Police [2012] NZHC 2323 — R v Taulapapa [2018] NZCA 414 — Page v New Zealand Police [2020] NZHC 904 — Supattan v New Zealand Police [2018] NZDC 2380 — Udasi v New Zealand Police DC Waitakere CRI-2019-090-001516, 18 June 2019 — Wood v New Zealand Police HC Wellington CRI-2009-485-000006, 30 April 2019 — Waight v New Zealand Police HC Auckland CRI-2006-404-000465, 24 May 2007. The defendant faced one charge each of driving with excess blood alcohol and careless driving causing injury. He had been driving his ex-girlfriend (the victim) home after a party at which they had both been drinking and crashed the car. The victim sustained a fracture and bruising. The defendant sought a discharge without conviction. The approach for considering a discharge without conviction application is well-established: assess the gravity of the offending; assess the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction; determine whether the consequences would be all out of proportion with the gravity of the offending and whether in all the circumstances it is appropriate to exercise discretion under s 106 of the Sentencing Act. The Judge assessed the offending as on the lower end of the moderate spectrum due to the mitigating actions taken by the defendant after the offending. These included a restorative justice conference, voluntary alcohol counselling, a defensive driving course, and a first aid training programme. He also expressed remorse and helped the victim. The defendant was on an interim student visa from China, and a conviction would mean a real and appreciable risk of deportation. It would also impact his ability to study further in China and could compromise his ability to renew his Chinese passport, as well as impact his ability to find a job either here or in China especially in the COVID-19 job market. The Judge considered similar cases where discharges had been granted and concluded that the consequences of a convction would be all out of proportion with the gravity of the offending. The Judge considered it was appropriate to exercise discretion and discharge the defendant on both charges. In respect of the drink driving charge, the Judge made an order that the defendant be disqualified from driving for a period of 12 months, and that he pay analyst fees of $111.99, medical expenses of $181.28 and court costs of $130. In respect of the careless driving causing injury charge the Judge ordered that the defendant pay the victim $4000 emotional harm reparation in addition to the $4000 already paid to the victim for damage to the car, and disqualified the defendant from driving for a 12 month period. Judgment Date: 21 December 2020.