Liverpool Drink Driving Case Study: Mid Range (0.126) With a Collision, 4 Months and a $900 Fine (NSW)

Jurisdiction
New South Wales
Court
Liverpool Local Court
Charges
Mid range PCA (0.126) with a single-vehicle collision, first offence
Outcome
Guilty plea. Conviction recorded. 4-month disqualification (backdated), $900 fine, 12-month alcohol interlock program.
Filmed
April 2024

Summary

A 22-year-old drove the wrong way down a one-way street and crashed through a construction barrier with a reading of 0.126. With counselling evidence, an apology and references, Liverpool Local Court imposed 4 months, a $900 fine and the interlock program.

Key takeaways

  • The reading of 0.126 was at the higher end of the middle range, and there was a single-vehicle collision.
  • The client was 22, with no traffic or criminal record.
  • He had started alcohol counselling, and evidence of that was put before the court.
  • He had not completed the Traffic Offenders Program in time, but other material supported him.
  • The court imposed 4 months (backdated), a $900 fine, a conviction and the 12-month interlock program.

A higher-end mid range reading at Liverpool

In this Liverpool drink driving case study, Joshua Boorman appeared at Liverpool Local Court for a client charged with a middle range drink driving offence. The reading was 0.126, towards the higher end of the middle range. The matter was quite aggravated because there was also a collision, although it was a single-vehicle collision with relatively minor damage.

What happened

On 25 January, the client was at home on an uneventful night, drinking self-poured bourbon and Cokes. At about 10.30 pm he made the poor decision to drive to the shops for late-night takeaway.

He drove the wrong way down a one-way street, quickly realised his mistake and went to make a U-turn. He then collided with a construction barrier at a building site, went through it and continued into a residential front yard. The damage was minimal, he had no passengers, and no one else was involved. Even so, the higher reading combined with a collision was treated as an aggravating feature.

About our client

He was 22 years old with a completely unblemished traffic record and no criminal history. Joshua notes that at his age a clean record is somewhat expected, but it still allowed him to submit that this was an isolated, uncharacteristic incident that was highly unlikely to happen again.

The client had previously been diagnosed with Asperger’s, clinical depression and ADHD, challenges he had faced since he was a teenager. He admitted that around the time of the offence he had been using alcohol regularly as a coping mechanism.

Getting help

Joshua describes a silver lining: the offence prompted the client to seek alcohol counselling. He had attended a couple of sessions with an alcohol counselling service in Liverpool, and evidence of that was presented to the court. The magistrate could see he was making voluntary attempts at rehabilitation.

He had run out of time to complete the Traffic Offenders Program before court, but the confirmation of counselling weighed in his favour. He also tendered a strong letter of apology, a reference from his work and other character references. His mother came to court to support him.

The outcome

  • a 4-month disqualification, backdated (Joshua says probably about a month above the minimum, because of the collision and the reading);
  • a $900 fine;
  • a conviction recorded; and
  • the 12-month alcohol interlock program.

Joshua explains that more serious penalties, such as community service, a community correction order or an intensive correction order, were avoided. The client had expected much more time off the road, a higher fine and possibly more serious penalties.

What this Liverpool drink driving case study shows

A collision and a higher reading can push a penalty above the minimum. Here, evidence of counselling, a clean record and good character material helped keep the outcome to a fine and a modest increase on the minimum disqualification. Every case is different, and outcomes depend on the facts.

Key general information (NSW)

General information only, not legal advice, as at October 2026. Every case turns on its own facts.

  • Drink driving (PCA) offences: In New South Wales most drink driving charges are “prescribed concentration of alcohol” (PCA) offences under the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW).
  • The broad penalty picture: As one example, Transport for NSW lists the maximum court-imposed penalty for a first mid range PCA offence as a fine of $2,200 and up to 9 months’ imprisonment (as at October 2026).
  • The Alcohol Interlock Program: A zero alcohol limit applies to all interlock drivers, and a person who receives an interlock order but does not enter the program is disqualified for 5 years.
  • Sentencing options: At the lower end, a court can find an offence proved but not record a conviction, either by dismissing the charge or by making a conditional release order (CRO) without conviction.
  • The court process: Drink and drug driving charges in NSW are usually dealt with in the Local Court.

Further reading and related videos

Boorman Lawyers has more on appearing at Liverpool Local Court, NSW drink driving penalties and NSW alcohol interlock laws. Its Sydney site covers drink driving matters across Sydney courts.

On this site, see a Parramatta mid range case after a crash and a Campbelltown mid range case, or browse all NSW and drink driving videos.

For people who are preparing to plead guilty without a lawyer, DIY DUI’s guide to drink and drug driving charges at Liverpool covers the local court and plea process. (DIY DUI is a self-help program for people preparing their own guilty plea. It is not legal representation and is not part of Boorman Lawyers.)

Frequently asked questions

What penalty did the client receive?

A 4-month disqualification (backdated), a $900 fine, a conviction and the 12-month alcohol interlock program.

Why was the disqualification above the minimum?

Joshua says it was probably about a month above the minimum because of the collision and the higher reading.

Did it matter that he had not done the Traffic Offenders Program?

He ran out of time to complete it, but he had evidence of alcohol counselling sessions, which Joshua says weighed in his favour.

What is a mandatory interlock order in NSW?

In general terms, it is an order made on conviction for certain drink driving offences, including mid range, high range and repeat offences. It combines a minimum licence disqualification with a later period (at least 12 months) of driving only a vehicle fitted with an alcohol interlock. Transport for NSW publishes the periods for each offence. This is general information only.

What are the PCA ranges in NSW?

As at October 2026, Transport for NSW lists novice range (learner or provisional driver above zero), special range (special category drivers over 0.02), low range (0.05 to 0.079), mid range (0.08 to 0.149) and high range (0.15 and above).

Read the video transcript

Josh here from Boorman Lawyers just outside Liverpool Local Court today. I appeared on a middle-range street driving offence. Uh the reading was 0.126. Um and uh and we we got a pretty good um outcome for our client today. It was quite aggravated the matter because um the reading was at the higher end of the middle-range category. Um our client had had a collision, albeit a single vehicle collision with relatively minor damage. Um the facts of the matter were that he was at home on uh 25th of January.

It was a pretty uneventful sort of night. He was at home uh drinking, having some self-poured um uh bourbon and cokes and um he's then um made a a poor decision to uh get into the car, drive down to the uh shops at about 10:30 at night to get some late-night takeaway. Um he's then driven down uh a one-way street the wrong way and uh quickly realised his decision is a poor decision and uh he gone to make a a U-turn, but unfortunately um uh he's then uh collided with a uh construction barrier.

There was a construction site going on and uh proceeded through that and pushed on into a residential front yard. There was really minimal damage and he didn't have any passengers in the car. No one was involved in the incident. Um but with the higher reading and a collision involved, it was certainly considered to be an aggravating feature of the matter. Um he did, thankfully, present before the court today with a completely unblemished traffic record, uh completely unblemished criminal history. And um and that certainly worked in his favour.

He's still only 22 years of age, so it's kind of to be expected that um he he does have no prior uh record like convictions on his record. So, but it was still a positive um uh submission we could make that it was an isolated uncharacteristic incident that was highly unlikely to be repeated again in the future. Uh our client um has previously been diagnosed with Asperger's, clinical depression, and ADHD. Certainly as a younger teenager he these are some challenges that he's had to have his whole life.

Um but he has uh admitted that in and around this incident that he had been using alcohol quite regularly as a bit of a coping mechanism. Uh if there was a silver lining to this matter, it has prompted him to go and get help um in relation to his alcohol counselling. And um he's had a couple of sessions now with [unclear: 'AODS'] uh at Liverpool um alcohol counselling services, which was um we had some evidence of that. We presented that before the court. And uh the magistrate could see that he um had making voluntary uh attempts to um uh rehabilitate.

So, we were able to he didn't unfortunately complete the Traffic Offenders Program. Um he ran out of time to do that. Um but thankfully we had the material of his um uh confirmation of counselling that we were able to present before the court, which certainly um weighed in his favour. We were also able to tender a good strong letter of apology, uh a letter of reference from his work, and some um other character references. Um and these were all uh taken into account towards his good character.

Um he was uh given a 4-month disqualification, which was backdated. Um uh probably month over and above the minimum period due to the collision and the reading. Uh but we'll we were able to avoid any uh further penalties, uh more serious penalties such as community service or um community corrections order or intensive corrections order because um it just remained as a a fine of $900, 4 month disqualification. Conviction was recorded and he will have to do the 12 month alcohol interlock program. Um he was expecting much more time off the road, higher fine, and potential of other more serious penalties, but um we were able to minimise that for him today.

Very happy client. Think it's the last time we'll ever see him before the court. He's got the good support of his mother who was here in support today. And uh they can move forward um uh knowing what they've got to do and how to get back on with their lives. Thanks for tuning in here at Liverpool Local Courthouse in Western Sydney.

General information only, based on New South Wales law at the time of filming. Not legal advice — every case turns on its own facts. Past results don't guarantee future outcomes.