He was caught drink-driving again when he was 21, this time with 862mcg per litre of breath, more than double the legal limit of 400.
Most recently in November 2020, aged 26, he drove off the road for 65m before crashing into a tree, badly damaging his car.
His breath test showed 863mcg, almost exactly the same as his previous offence.
Hurley was fined $1500 and ordered to use an alcohol interlock device. Then, three months later, police revoked his firearms licence.
His record also showed he was caught speeding six times between 2013 and 2017, and failing to stop at a stop sign in 2016.
While Hurley’s repeat offending did not involve firearms, Police said it showed a propensity to break rules and put himself and others at risk, which made him not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.
Hurley appealed his revocation in Palmerston North District Court this year, saying he had married and was now more responsible, managing a 1300-acre cattle and sheep farm his family owned in Feilding.
Firearms were part of his farm upbringing and needed for killing pests and euthanising animals in his farm work. He also needed the licence for duck shooting, he said, a “major recreational and social pursuit” for him.
He told the court he did not have a drinking problem and was not violent in any way.
Judge Christopher Tuohy disagreed, saying the alcohol levels in his repeat offences clearly showed a problem with alcohol.
“This type of offending is serious,” the judge said.
In the decision released last month, he said Hurley’s record showed a propensity to abuse alcohol in a way that negatively affected his judgment and behaviour.
“I place little weight on the fact that the ability to use a firearm is a necessary part of his work duties and no weight on his desire to use it for recreational purposes,” he said.
When Parliament amended the Arms Act in 2020, it specifically had in mind the firearms risk posed by a person whose offending involved alcohol, Judge Tuohy added.
The Act also says the ability to hold and use a firearm is a privilege.
But a person’s fit and proper status could change over time, the judge said, and if Hurley could demonstrate he no longer had an alcohol problem he would qualify again.
An inspector in the Arms Safety and Control division of the police told the court a person could only be considered fit and proper after an offence-free period of five years from revocation.
Judge Tuohy said he believed there should be flexibility here, and recommended Hurley went for a full professional alcohol assessment, counselling and treatment.
