Supreme Court Right-Hand Rule In Square: Appeal Argued

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29802, 19 April 1962, Page 7

Supreme Court Right-Hand Rule In Square: Appeal Argued

Mr Justice Richmond reserved his decision on an appeal in the Supreme Court yesterday against a Magistrate’s Court decision involving the application of the right-hand rule in Cathedra] square.

"Seeing that this matter of right of way in the Square has been canvassed and is obviously oi public importance, I will have to make some pronouncement on th* question,’’ said his Honour John Bernard Ekensteen (Mr J. H. F. Macfarlane) appealed against his conviction for dangerous driving on December 13. There was a collision between a car driven by Ekensteen from west to east around the Square and a south-bound car from Colombo street.

The appellant held that he was not making a turn to the right in driving across the intersection, said Mr Macfarlane. He therefore believed he had the right of way. Mr Macfarlane submitted that evidence of custom vindicated the appellant's attitude of mind as he approached the intersection, and if he had these grounds for belief in his right of way then his speed was not dangerous. The penalty of £l5 fine and licence cancellation was excessive. Penalties should be reasonably uniform.

All must have little doubt that the expression “turning to the right” meant turning from one road into another, said his Honour. “I understand the Magistrate's view was that a person going round the circumference of the Square was continuously turning right,” he said. For the Crown. Mr N. W Williamson, said that the prosecution had not put forward the points of not keeping to the left or inability to stop in half the clear distance ahead, and it could only agree with the authorities on the right-hand rule. The rightness or wrongness of this rule here was not

fatal to conviction in this case. It was reasonable for the appellant to suppose his speed could cause injury, and this constituted dangerous driving.

Two Grounds ot Appeal Introducing his case, Mr Macfarlane said that this was a general appeal against a decision by Mr Stewart Hardy, S.M., on the grounds that it was against the weight erf evidence and wrong in law. One matter affected the whole of the motoring public in general, and since the Magistrate’s decision traffic approached the Square with uncertainty and trepidation. He asked for leave to bring further evidence in the case. Mr Hardy from time to time presided in Christchurch, said Mr Macfarlane. Counsel was not aware until the day of the hearing in the lower Court that the Magistrate would in feet be presiding over the hearing of the appellant’s case, and, at that stage, could not obtain evidence as to custom or as to the effect of the by-law on traffic in the Square. His Honour said he would grant leave for the taking of further evidence. Mr Macfarlane said the evidence he would call would show that, up to the hearing, traffic travelling around the Square from west to east had right of way, that the traffic department of the Christchurch City Council had obtained convictions against south-bound motorists, and that the department had drawn up plans for traffic lights in the Square to prevent the building up of traffic in Colombo street

He submitted that the general practice had been for Colombo street traffic travelling south to give way to traffic coming from the right, from the west.

The traffic in the Square was travelling on what was tantamount to a one-way road. To meet the finding of the Magistrate that the appellant had failed to keep as far as possible to the left, he submitted that Ekensteen was entitled to make use of the full width of the roadway, subject to other traffic. In crossing Colombo street, a motorist driving around the Square would be in a better position on the right erf the roadway, rather than on the left, said Mr Macfarlane. Witness Heard

Joseph Brown, senior traffic prosecutor for the Christchurch City Council, said south - bound traffic in Colombo street had always given way to traffic on its right and travelling from west to east around Cathedral square, whether it was on the right or left of the safely zone there. “I have apprehended drivers for not giving way to me when I was on their right,” said the witness. He recalled convictions against south-bound traffic for failing to give way, he said. One was against a taxi-driver; and a man named Salt, on reading the press after the case of the appellant, had come to the department and asked what was going to be done about a conviction entered against him.

“We found that a difficult question to answer,” said the witness. It was permissible for traffic to use the whole roadway between the Godley plot in Cathedral square and rtbe '

bus zone. His Honour: I interpret this to mean that that type of driving is admissible by Mr Brown’s department. The witness said that the standard penalty for conviction for dangerous driving had in his experience been a £lO fine and the minimum mandatory cancellation of a driving licence for 12 months. To Mr Williamson, the witness said he would not call this a tricky intersection. Motorists generally drove slowly, around this part Of the Square. He agreed that a car driven south from Colombo street would have to deviate to the right to pass the Cathedral. “Paramount” Rule Mr Macfarlane submitted that on the evidence there could not be a finding of failing to keep as close as practicable to the left. Ekensteen might have been unable to stop within half the distance of clear road ahead, but it was impossible for that rule to apply where surely the right-hand rule would be the paramount rule. A constable had given evidence that Ekensteen was travelling 40 miles an hour, but this was not corroborated by other witnesses, and it would be a near physical impossibility to circumnavigate the Square at this speed, said Mr Macfarlane. He contended that the appellant tvas not changing direction to the right but was proceeding across the intersection and should have the benefit of the right-hand rule. His Honour asked whether the road going around the Cathedral was one road, and whether, as the regulation on intersections referred to two roads only, more than two roads were involved here. There were four or five roads if the lanes behind the bus zones were included. i “Have we got an inter-' section here at all?” he asked.

A curious situation might arise in which it could be held that the roadway in front of the Cathedral and opposite Colombo street was substantially continuing in one direction, but buses coming out of Colombo street might actually be turning right into the bus lane, then left.

The Square might be a gigantic roundabout if it were not for the two roads through the middle, said his Honour. Then incoming traffic would give way, although it had not yet been authoritatively settled that the righthand rule applied in a roundabout. If this were not a one-way situation, traffic from east to west would be turning left on the curve of the Square roadway and south-bound traffic would not have to give way, said his Honour. Counsel agreed that it was not desirable to rehear the witnesses and that the appeal should be decided on the law on the record of the lower Court.

His Honour then reserved his decision.