APPEAL BY DRIVER

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29232, 16 June 1960, Page 8

APPEAL BY DRIVER

Disqualification Varied

An appeal by Ralph Sydney Trowbridge against a sentence of a £l5 fine and disqualification from holding a driver’s licence for six months imposed in a charge of driving without due care and attention was dismissed by Mr Justice Richmond in the Supreme Court yesterday. His Honour held that the Magistrate’s sentence was not excessive. However, he varied the disqualification order to enable Trowbridge, a 28-year-old driver, to drive heavy vehicles and road machinery in the course of hip employ with a roading contractor during the period of his disqualification. Mr R. F. Jones appeared for Trowbridge and Mr C. M. Roper for the Crown. Counsel said the appellant was driving a car on the night of January 23 when he struck a car parked in Pine avenue. New Brighton. On May 27, the appellant had been convicted for driving without due care and attention. On the same day, in the Lower Court, the driver of the car the appellant had hit had been fined for parking his car without due consideration for other road users.

“My submission is that the appellant was properly convicted but that the sentence imposed was too harsh,” counsel said.

Mr Roper said it was apparent from the evidence that a passenger in the front seat of the appellant’s car had seen the parked car a chain away, but it was obvious the appellant had not seen it until he was right on top of it. The whole of the appellant’s criminal record showed him to be- an irresponsible person and it was proper that the Magistrate should take into account the fact that he had been drinking before the accident. He would not object if the disqualification order was varied so the appellant could drive the vehicles and machinery necessary for his employment, Mr Roper concluded. He was not satisfied that the sentence was excessive. The appellant’s car had no warrant of fitness and he had recently been convicted of driving a truck without a warrant of fitness, said his Honour. "The appellant’s record shows him irresponsible. A completely irresponsible person is a menace on the road and can expect no sympathy from the Court. The Appellant might well have killed a pedestrian but fortunately hit a car without causing anyone serious injury,” his Honour said in dismissing the appeal.