A woman charged with supplying alcohol to a minor after a Cromwell 16-year-old was found intoxicated and comatose on the street one winter night, has been granted diversion and the charge withdrawn.
The name of the Central Otago woman was suppressed yesterday when the case was dealt with in the Alexandra District Court before justices of the peace Bill Townsend and Joy McDonald.
The 18-year-old woman had faced a charge of supplying alcohol to a person aged under 18 on August 13.
The charge was laid under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and the maximum penalty faced was a fine of $2000. The facts summary said the defendant had bought a litre bottle of 37.5% alcohol vodka and given it to an underage person.
That person then gave it to a 16-year-old girl, who shared it with two other teenagers.
They became ''grossly intoxicated'' and the 16-year-old became disoriented while heading home and collapsed on the grass verge of a street.
About an hour later, a resident found the girl on the street in ''a serious, life-threatening condition'' and she was rushed to Dunstan Hospital, the summary said.
The defendant told police she had given the vodka to a minor but believed it would be consumed at a party, supervised by the person's parents.
Prosecutor Sergeant Ian Collin said since the last time the defendant appeared in court, police had deemed diversion was appropriate.
The defendant had completed the process to the satisfaction of police.
Counsel Kieran Tohill said the defendant was a first offender and she had bought alcohol for a person who passed it on to another person.
There was ''a break in the chain in terms of supply'', he said.
He sought name suppression and said publication of her name would cause her extreme hardship and imply she was guilty when she had not been convicted of any offence.
Sgt Collin said there was public interest in the case and any report on the matter ''could highlight that the police are taking positive action in regards to this type of offending'' despite the defendant being granted diversion.
He had no objection to the defendant's name being suppressed.
Mr Townsend said the defendant had ''learned a hard lesson'' and publication of her name would cause more hardship, so final suppression was granted.
