MR SEMPLE AND JUSTICES

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22137, 6 July 1937, Page 11

MR SEMPLE AND JUSTICES

INVERCARGILL CASE DISCUSSED

EXPLANATION BY MEMBER OF . BENCH

ir&ESs issocuiiox tblegsuk.i

INVERCARGILL. July 5. In reply to the criticism by the Minister for Transport (the Hon. R. Semple) of undue leniency extended to drunken motorists by the Justices of the Peace, Mr R. J. dimming, J.P., writes as follows to the "Southland Times":

"Public opinion throughout the Dominion will support Mr Semple in his determination to put an end to drunkenness while in charge of motorvehicles. Tnrec cases of undue leniency by the. Justices of the Peace are named. R. J. Cumming was one of the two justices on the bench in the invercargill case, and as there is a case to answer 1 am going to make an answer. I will do so as a private citizen, iully conversant with tne circumstances.

"The man was charged with being intoxicated while in charge of a motorcar. The case was proved, but there were mitigating circumstances which, apparently, are being lost sight of. The accused had driven to a quiet spot in Leven street, near the old drill hall, where he was comparatively out of harm's way. Whether he proceeded there in an intoxicated state was not in the evidence. He might quite reasonably have driven there before the effects of liquor were on hiin. The benefit of the doubt was due to him. A court in session has its responsibilities for 'a just balance.' "The man, while technically in charge, was using the car as a sleeping den only. He was not driving or endangering users of the road. Had he gone out of the car and slept under a hedge, the fine by a Magistrate would have .been light, say £l. The fine imposed in the circumstances was £5, which I still consider was ample. His name was suppressed, and his licence was not endorsed because he was a Government employee and otherwise would have been dismissed.

"The Court felt justified in taking into consideration those dependent on him, who would have been the chief sufferers: also that the fine was in itself sufficient to meet the case. With the other two cases I am not concerned. Each case should stand on its own legs."'