Land Transport Act 1998 Westlaw LexisNexis
s 6 Vehicles to be safe and operated in compliance with rules
(1) A person may not operate an unsafe motor vehicle on a road.
(2) If the regulations or the rules require a vehicle to have current evidence of vehicle inspection or a current certificate of loading, or both, a person may not operate the vehicle on a road without the appropriate current evidence of vehicle inspection or certificate or both (as the case may require).
(3) A person operating a motor vehicle that is required to have current evidence of vehicle inspection or a certificate of loading must comply with the provisions in the regulations and the rules concerning such evidence or certificate, and the operation of the vehicle.
(4) Evidence of vehicle inspection must be displayed on the vehicle to which it applies.
See Julian v Waitakere City Council HC Auckland A182/99 for an illustration of infringements against s 6(4).
Land Transport Act 1998 Westlaw LexisNexis
s34 Contravention of section 6
(1) A person commits an offence if the person—
(a) Operates an unsafe motor vehicle on a road; or
(b) Operates a vehicle on a road without displaying current evidence of vehicle inspection or a certificate of loading or both (as may be required by the regulations or the rules); or
(c) Fails to comply with the provisions of the regulations or the rules concerning evidence of vehicle inspection, certificates of loading, or the operation of a vehicle that is required to have such evidence or certificate or both.
(2) The maximum penalty on conviction for an offence against subsection (1) is a fine not exceeding $2,000.
See Julian v Waitakere City Council HC Auckland A182/99, 22 February 2000 for an illustration of infringements against s 34(1)(b).
Courts are empowered to impose upon defendants, a fine, pursuant to s 34. This fine is not counted as an infringement fee which is made payable by s 141 Land Transport Act 1998, however the infringement fee is one factor to take into account when deciding the level of the fine. See Nelson City Council v Howard HC Nelson CRI-2004-042-0220.
See Larason v Police HC Christchurch CRI-2007-409-6 for discussion of the impact of culpability on the imposition of fines.
See R v De Montalk CA157/03 for examination of whether failure to display a current warrant of fitness under s 34(1)(b) is a strict liability offence.
Refer to Prescott v Police HC Auckland CRI-2005-404-82 for assessment of impact of exemption from the requirement to display a current warrant of fitness per Rule 10.2(2) of the Land Transport Rule: Vehicle Standards Compliance 2002.