OBLIGED TO TELL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 208, 3 September 1934, Page 8

OBLIGED TO TELL.

MOTOR CAR OWNERS. INFORMATION FOR POLICE. WHANGAB.EI PROSECUTION. (Bj Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) WHANGAREI, this day. Should the owner of a motor vehicle be forced to incriminate himself when, on being informed of an .offence alleged to have been committed in his car, hois requested by a constable to give information which may lead to the identification of the driver of the vehicle? This point of interest to motorists arose out of the prosecution of William Joseph Orr for failing to give to a constable all the information in his power which might have led ro the identification of the driver of his car, which was alleged to have had no tail light. It was held by the magistrate, Mr. G. N. Morris, S.M., who gave written judgment this morning, that a motorist is obliged to give all the information in his powerj and convicted defendant, fining him £1 and costs 10/. The magistrate stated that the defendant was charged tinder a section of thr. Motor Vehicles Act, which stated that the owner of any motor vehicle shau, on being informed of any offence alleged to have been committed by the iriver of such motor vehicle, on being requested so to do by any constable, givi -ill information in his possession which may lead to the identification and apprehension of the driver, and if the owner fails so to do he commits an offence agaust this Act. "The defence," Mr. Morris went on. "is the contention that this provision does not apply where the owner and the driver are one and the same person. It is submitted that the Act does not plainly and unequivocally indicate that it. was intended to infringe a longstanding common law right. "Read alone, this sub-section give rise to some doubt as to its int- _ i pretation, but I am of opinion that if read in its context the position becomes much clearer. The provisions of the succeeding section require a driver in case of accident to stop; to give his name and address and that of the owner of,.the ear, and also the reg:stered number and the make of • the vehicle. There is further a duty to report to the police. As to this section there is. no ambiguity and at the same time it clearly infringes the right of ai: accused person to refuse to incriminate himself. "In view of these provisions it would, I think, be inconsistent and illogical "-.hat section' 32 (2) applies only where owner and driver are separate persons, '.'he effect would be that the provisions of the previous section would be nullified, as that an unidentified owner-driver, who failed to stop, would usually be sat • from discovery even if his registeieri number were known. "In the present case the owner evae'ed the inquiries of the police and failed to give the information that he was himself the driver. He will therefore be eon-J victcd.""' I