Mehta v The King - [2025] NZHC 2612

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2025-463-000002

[2025] NZHC 2612

BETWEEN
RATNESH BANKIM MEHTA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 1 September 2025

Appearances:

L J L Hemi for Appellant L J Clay for Respondent

Judgment:

8 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 8 September 2025 at 4.30 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ...................................

Solicitors: Piki Mai Law, Whakatāne
Pollett Legal Ltd, Tauranga

MEHTA v R [2025] NZHC 2612 [8 September 2025]

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against a decision of Judge L M Bidois declining the appellant’s, Mr Mehta’s, application for a discharge without conviction under s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002.1 Mr Mehta was before the Court having pleaded guilty to a charge of driving with excess breath alcohol.2 The appeal is opposed. An appeal against a refusal to grant a discharge without conviction proceeds as an appeal against both conviction and sentence.3

Legal principles

[2] The Court may grant a discharge without conviction if satisfied the direct and indirect consequences of conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending.4

[3] The accepted course is to assess the gravity of the offending having regard to all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors; to identify the direct and indirect consequences of conviction of which there is a real and appreciable risk; and to determine whether those consequences are out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending.

Background

[4] At about 7.45 pm on 26 October 2023, Mr Mehta was stopped by police at a routine alcohol check point. Mr Mehta undertook a breath screening test which suggested he had been consuming alcohol, following which the police administered an evidential breath test, the result of which was a reading of 577 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. The police subsequently charged Mr Mehta with driving with excess breath alcohol.

1      Police v Mehta [2024] NZDC 23393.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 56(1). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment or a fine of
$4,500.
3      Jackson v R [2016] NZCA 627, (2016) 28 CRNZ 144 at [9].
4      Sentencing Act 2002, ss 106 and 107.

[5] As it happened, and the Judge accepted this, Mr Mehta had not consumed any alcohol, and was surprised by the result.

[6] Mr Mehta contacted his general practitioner, who referred him to a gastroenterologist. The gastroenterologist conducted various tests which indicated that Mr Mehta had a rare, but recognised, condition called “auto-brewery syndrome”. Auto-brewery syndrome is a condition in which micro-organisms in the digestive system ferment carbohydrates into ethanol. As I understand it, ethanol is “alcohol” for the purposes of s 56 of the Land Transport Act 1998.

[7] Although s 56 creates an offence of strict liability, a defendant has a defence if they can prove, on the balance of probabilities, that their breath alcohol result is the product of involuntary consumption or process.5

[8]…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Mehta v The King

Details

AGLC: Mehta v The King [2025] NZHC 2612
Case: [2025] NZHC 2612
Decision Date: 8 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mehta v The King involved an appeal by Mr. Ratnesh Bankim Mehta against a decision by Judge L M Bidois to decline his application for a discharge without conviction under section 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Mr. Mehta had pleaded guilty to driving with excess breath alcohol after being stopped at a routine alcohol checkpoint. The appeal was opposed by the Crown. The legal issue before the court was whether the consequences of Mr. Mehta's conviction were out of proportion to the gravity of his offending.

The court considered the principles governing the granting of a discharge without conviction, which requires the court to assess the gravity of the offending, identify the consequences of conviction, and determine if they are disproportionate. The court found that Mr. Mehta had a valid defence to the charge due to a medical condition known as auto-brewery syndrome, which caused his breath alcohol result without him consuming alcohol. The court found fault with the Judge’s reasoning that Mr. Mehta should have known something was wrong, as there was no evidence to support this claim. The court concluded that the consequences of conviction, such as potential impacts on Mr. Mehta's ability to sponsor others for residence and his liquor licence application, were significant enough to warrant a discharge without conviction.

In light of these findings, the court allowed the appeal and discharged Mr. Mehta without conviction.

Orders