NEED FOR SCIENTIFIC TESTING OF SUSPECTS

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27961, 7 May 1956, Page 12

NEED FOR SCIENTIFIC TESTING OF SUSPECTS

ALAN HARDCASTLE)

[By

THE DRUNKEN DRIVER

[HI]

Certainty ot detection and punishment would end drunken 1 driving, except by the addicts, who should lose their licences for life. Probability ol punishment would greatly reduce it. At present detection and punishment are improbable. Just how mucn notice is taken of repeated official threats of the tight net spread for the drunken driver is obvious to anyone who sees the 6 p.m. Saturday emptying of the bars into the cars. Of course they are not all drunken drivers; neither are they all fit drivers. True, there have recently been more prosecutions; but there are more drivers who drink, as witness any hotel kerbside and the new spacious car parks. Of those stopped as suspect not one in 10 is charged with driving while under the influence of liquor, or, in plain English, with drunken driving. Patrols are tired of “being knockco back in Court.” So unless the driver is almost staggering drunk he gets a simple ticket for failing to keep left, speeding, dangerous overtaking, or the like. An Admission of Failure

Or they take the keys. That is complete proof that the patrols knows the driver to be a public danger; and it is also an admission of failure by authority to find some real way dealing with the driver who is “halt shot”—and 100 per cent, dangerous. A strange solution to this futility of enforcement was proposed officially and was solemnly translated into law. This is the double-barrelled charge. The driver is charged with driving while under the influence and also with, say, failure to keep left. If ths Court considers the major charge not proved then it may convict for failure to keep left, to which offence the taking of liquor contributed. Inquiry has failed to find one prosecution under this yes-no provision; and no wonder. The driver was not drunk enough to be convicted as a drunken driver, but, being sober legally, was drunk enough not to be able to handle his vehicle properly. It is difficult to secure the conviction of even a staggering drunk if he is injured. He pleads “shock,” and since shock and intoxication may present similar symptoms he often gets away with it. The blood or urine test would determine that. It would assist to convict the guilty, and positively would clear the innocent. There must be more men, fulltime, experienced officers, to do the job; and they must be given the powers and tools to work with.

Strange Inconsistency The Minister of Transport has opposed the blood test. Some men, he said, could drink a certain amount of liquor and it would not affect them; others would be more affected. Yet the blood test is officially accepted as a reliable, legal, test when the blood, or urine, is taken from the corpse of a driver or victim. The results of blood and urine tests are stated at inquest after inquest, and are never queried. Drunken driving is a gross crime, which brings shame on the driver and to his family. It is inconceivable that the Legislature would permit, or the courts tolerate, the continued use for post mortem purposes of a test which is not accepted by the law, by pathologists, medical men in general, and analysts, as a correct test. To admit evidence of an unsatisfactory test could damn the name irrevocably of a man who cannot speak back in defence. It is a strange inconsistency indeed. B.M.A. Did Not Condemn Test It is generally believed that the New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association condemned the test as unreliable. It did not. It reported to the Road Safety Council that the blood tests may be “desirable and useful” if carried out under strict safeguards, which are. of course, implicit in all scientific techniques. It did oppose ‘compulsory tests, and also urine tests. It saw great difficulties in that blood samples could be taken, only by medical men under correct conditions and “virtually insurmountable” difficulties in the expeditious transport of specimens to and their examination by official analysts. It did *ot consult the analysts in these latter respects.

A TEST OF VERACITY The blood or urine test for intoxication has been repeatedly misrepresented. It is not devised to secure automatic convictions. All countries, except Norway, using such tests insist that courts shall hear police and other evidence as well. The more telling gurpose is its check upon veracity. :e who tells the court. "Three small beers,” will be uoheld in his protestation or will be shown up as a liar. It is as much a test of veracity as of intoxication. In several countries where impersonal. scientific tests are applied. both drivers in collision, drivers in other accidents, drivers who commit more serious road offences, and pedestrians and cyclists, too. must, if the police order, submit to the test. Those who leave the scene of an accident to avoid the check are adjudged to have declared themselves guilty. In some countries the host who has allowed a drunken person to drive also faces Court charges.

On this report the Road Safetv Council advised the Minister that it did not recommend that blood or urine tests should be introduced. Shortlv after this the report of the British Medical Association. London, in association with the Royal Institute of Chemistry, was received by the Safetv Council. The London B.M.A advocated the urine test, but not the blood test, largely because this ’tert solved a main problem in the taking of specimens (which it stated any police officer could do), and because it considered it a proven, accurate, and fair test. There were other important differences of view. With both reports before them, the New Zealand Government Analysts stated their unanimous agreement with the report of the senior B.MA as to the reliability of the urine test, and they advised the Road Safety Council that they saw no difficulties in the way of expeditious transport and analysis of specimens. They stated their readiness to undertake their part of the work as a contribution towards road safety. Safety Council Washes its Hands Notwithstanding these two later documents upon a matter of vital importance in road safety, the Safety Council did not move to reopen the subject. It washed its hands of the whole difficult business. The report of the New Zealand B.M.A. was discussed cursorily and ‘certain proposals made by the medical men for a more satisfactory system of presenting evidence, apart from tests, were not followed up. The report of the parent B.M.A. has been circulated and has not been discussed. The Dominion Analyst has been thanked for his letter and its contents have been “noted.” Members of the Road Safety Council cannot think this too trivial a matter to warrant their serious attention. Does the council feel that serious study of this distasteful problem is beyond it? If that is the position, then «o important a national matter' should be referred to some special* committee or commission with a balanced membership of for thorough investigation. Drunken driving is a shameful feature of New Zealand motoring; and, the great mass of the public wants something done, whether by the introduction of scientific tests or by other more effective means than are now' employed. (Concluded)