DRIVING LICENCE SUSPENSION

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27496, 2 November 1954, Page 9

DRIVING LICENCE SUSPENSION

MOTORIST’S APPEAL REJECTED (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 1. A motorist who pleaded guilty in writing to a charge of negligent driving at Taupo, but sought an adjournment if the Magistrate considered cancelling or suspending his licence, failed in his appeal to the Supreme Court against the suspension imposed without adjournment. He was Donald Henry Robinson, a contractor, of Upper Hutt. A summons called on him to appear at Taupo, and his solicitor wrote to the Court pleading guilty, and mentioning mitigating facts and the possible adjournment. The Magistrate imposed a fine of £5, and suspended Robinson’s licence for two months.

The only complaint in the appeal was about the suspension. The ground was that Robinson had requested an opportunity to make representations about it, , but that the opportunity had been denied him.

The. Chief Justice (Sir Harold Barrowclough) said the Court should not impose a penalty on the appellant without giving him the opportunity of being, heard in mitigation, and the sole question was whether he had a reasonable opportunity. Upon the facts in the letter, the Magistrate was not bound to grant an adjournment. The appellant was not ill. In prison, or prevented from answering the summons.

On his own statement of the facts, the appellant was not justified in assuming that his licence was not in danger, said his Honour. Having underestimated the likely consequences, he: sought an inexpensive way out of his trouble. One could sympathise with his position, but this was not a case where a Magistrate should adjourn the hearing, or where a mere letter should be accepted for that purpose, although there were cases where this was justified.

“The present appellant was not deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard in mitigation,” said his Honour. “He merely refrained from taking advantage of that opportunity, which he undoubtedly had, and of which the summons clearly gave him notice. If he fails, to attend without proper excuse, he himself forfeits that opportunity. He is not deprived of it.”