Driving with excess breath alcohol — admissibility of evidence — infringement of rights — hearing impediment — sign language interpreter — reading comprehension — right to consult and instruct lawyer — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 23(1)(b) — Evidence Act 2006, s 30 — R v Mallinson [1993] 1 NZLR 528 — Brown v Police [1995] HRNZ 57. The defendant faced a charge of driving with excess breath alcohol. It was agreed that he had driven and had been stopped and spoken to by a police officer. When the defendant subsequently failed a breath test, the police officer took him back to the station. During the interaction the officer became aware that the defendant had a hearing impediment, and gave him his rights in written form. At the station the officer and the defendant continued to communicate through writing; the defendant indicated that he did not wish to speak to a lawyer and was ultimately charged with drunk driving. In Court the defendant gave evidence and said that he had wanted a sign language interpreter while being interviewed at the police station, and had struggled to understand the written questions because English was not his first language; his first language was sign language. An expert witness gave testified that deaf people usually struggle with written comprehension. The Court found that the defendant was profoundly deaf and had not understood the written questions that he was asked. The officer had been aware of the communication problems and should have engaged a sign language interpreter. As the prosecution had failed to prove that the defendant had understood his rights, the evidence was improperly obtained and the Court ruled it inadmissible. The charge was dismissed. Judgment Date: 17 August 2020. * * * Note: Names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *