NO REHEARING.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 288, 5 December 1932, Page 5

NO REHEARING.

MOTOR SPEED CASE.

MAGISTRATE AND A.A.A.

U A JUSTIFIED REMARK."

«I yield to no one in the work of the A DUt the defence put up by them had'no merit to start with," said Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M., when giving his reserved judgment in the Magistrate's Court at Otaluihu to-day on the application of James Priekett, a member of the Auckland Automobile Association, for a rehearing of the case in which he was charged with driving a motor car tlie Bombay deviation at a speed in exceee of that laid down by a by-law of the Main Highways Board. Tlie prosecution was heard at Pukekohe in September, and Prickett was fined.

R-viewing the oase, Mr. Levien aaid the defendant was one of a number of 80 motorists prosecuted. One month later other prosecutions were laid, but ff ere dismissed, the defence being that notices had not been fixed on two clay roade. Apparently on the strength of that a rehearing was demanded by Prickett. Inspector Barrett had not been cross-examined. The defence was golelv that one sign only was erected on that day, and that it could have been mistaken owing to its situation. The true position was that five A.A.A. 6 jtms had been erected, and six notices Ud been posted by the Main Highways Board at the request of the A.A.A. In the meantime, one month later, the A.A.A. had looked into the position and found that the two clay roads had not been indicated by signs. They contended that the lejal position was euch that the October prosecutions should be dismissed and the defence upheld.

"I have looked into the civil and criminal aspects of the request," said Jfr. Levien, "and there is nothing to justify a rehearing. One of the principal grounds of a rehearing k that there is fresh evidence that was not available at the time. Further, the fresh evidence must strengthen the original evidence and also the general contention that substantial justice has not been done. I refuse a rehearing on the grounds that evidence was available at the time, and that substantial justice has been done."

Mr. T. N. Holmden, who appeared for Prickett, eaid that, in view of Prese reports of comments by Mr. Levien, the A.A.A. could not let the matter pass without comment. He was proceeding to read a reply compiled by the association when Mr. Levien stopped him and said: "If the A.A.A. have any comment to make, let them hand their manifesto to the Press. What I said at Pukekohe was a simple remark, perfectly justified and reasonable, and it admitted of no argument. Prickett was defended by the association, who ought to have known that what Prickett said was not true. One of the association's patrols was present, and heard the evidence, and could have contradicted it. It was regrettable, under the circumstances, that the A.A.A., represented by its counsel, should allow Prickett's statement to pass."

STATEMENT BY A.A.A.

The statement by the A.A.A. is summarised below: — According to the Press report the magistrate said: (a) That the real defendant in the proceedings was the Auckland Automobile Association; (b) that the Main Highways Board should take no notice of the A.A.A.; (c) that the A.A.A. lent its assistance to people •who disregarded the speed limit; (d) that the funds of the A.A.A. were used in assisting people who flouted the AAA.'s own special instructions. With regard to these statements the A.A.A. eubmits:—

(1) That it claims to represent some 16,000 motorists.

(2) That since its incorporation the slogan of the A.A.A. has always been "safety first," and it follows that the 'A.A.A. does not give its support to any breaches of motoring regulations or. of by-laws.

(3) That the association provides free legal advice to its members in regard to all motoring prosecutions, whether by the police or by local authorities, and such free legal advice includes the appearance of counsel in the Police Courts on behalf of its members. The association does not itself decide whether * prosecution is to be defended or not. Tbi determination of that is left entirely to its legal advisers and the members concerned.

"Innocent Till Proved Guilty."

(4) That a person charged with any offence is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty; in other words, it Sβ for the prosecution to prove its case. (5) That the association feels that a large number of prosecutions are brought for,the sole purpose of raising revenue for local bodies.

(6) That it has been laid down by Tery high judicial authority that the dnfy of the police (and it follows the doty of persons such as traffic inspectors) is to prevent rather than detect crime, and in order to assist that ideal the A-A..A, erected on the Bombay deviation a large number of notice boards requesting motorists to keep their epeed Bnder 30 miles per hour.

(7) That the association feels that Whatever the charge, a member is entitled, subject to the advice of its legal advisers, to have his case properly defended. By granting a member free legal defence the A.A.A. contends it floes not thereby become a defendant to the proceedings.

(8) The association, subject in all brings to the paramount claims of its members, endeavours to have friendly relations with the police and local body traffic inspectors. With the police those relations have been unruffled, and the same can be eaid with regard to most of the local body traffic inspectors, where, however, questionable methods of trapping and timing are adopted, the A.AA. feels that it should exert all its influence to protect its members.

The Bombay Deviation. With reference to the prosecution of Jfr. Prickett, the association says the by-law was made by the Main Highways Board, which has as one of its Members a "motorists' representative," ■od that the A.A.A.'s opinions as to otters affecting motorists are always considered by the board, and a policy of compromise has invariably Accompanied all determinations of the ward, in cases where the opinions of We board and of the association differ. Jμ by-law in question was made by tae board for the purpose of preserving "Jβ toad surface until it could be sealed. Thfc association, in addition to erecting Manaber of signs, Jhad patoote^tationed

on the deviation to warn motorists to slow up, and thus ensure compliance with the by-law. The A.A.A. contends that in this way it was giving better effect to the purpose of the Main Highways Board than its insjrector did, for he ordered the patrols away from the deviation, allowed motorists to travel at a speed in excess of the limit, and subsequently prosecuted them.

" Objectionable Methods." With regard generally to prosecutions for speeding on the Bombay deviation, the association ie of opinion that the method of trapping motorists adopted the traffic' inspector is extremely objectionable. Among those who have been prosecuted during the last few months are highly respectable members of the community whose respect for the law is euch that they have taken special precautions so as not to exceed the speed limit. These members avow that at no time did they exceed the speed Innit, and that the subsequent prosecution was incomprehensible. The question whether any of the funds of the association should be applied in providing free legal defence for its members concerns nobody except the association and its members, and in this it has as a. precedent the policy of the largest motoring association in the world, the Automobile Association (if England.