Supreme Court £200 Fine For Negligent Driving Causing Death

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29820, 12 May 1962, Page 14

Supreme Court £200 Fine For Negligent Driving Causing Death

A men who wa* convictei! by a jury on Tuesday of neg ligent driving causing dealt was fined £2OO by Mr Jue tiee Richmond in the Supreme Court yesterday. H< was ordered to pay £5O to wards the cost of the prosecution, his driving licenci was cancelled, and he wa; disqualified from obtaining another for three years. .' He is Norman Alan Cooper aged 29, a motor mechanic (Mr A DI Hofland, with him Mr L. H. Moore). Coopei had been convicted of negligent driving causing the death of Paul Murray Sinclair, aged three, in Avbnhead road on December 16. His Honour ordered thai Cooper be imprisoned for nol more than three months it the event of non-payment <S the fine within 28 days. His Honour adjourned ar application by Mr HoUanc for a certificate from the Court that it was a propei case for an appeal againsl the conviction. Mr Hollanc said his grounds were thai the jury’s verdict Was againsi the weight of the evidence and that there bad been i miscarriage of justice in that the prosecution should have called a witness who wai called by the defence. As e result, the jury might have placed less weight on thai witness’s evidence. Before sentence wai passed, Mr Holland said thai on the facts Cooper's blameworthiness for the accident must have been as little al had ever been before the Court in a case of that kind It was an accident free ol liquor or wilfulness, and one that could have occurred tc anyone who regarded himself as a reasonable drivei and whose attention had wandered for a fraction of a second. He said the jury might have erred in thinking thai Cooper should have seen children on the road, whereas there had been no evidence of children being on the road. Although Cooper had been convicted of dangerous!} driving a motor-cycle sis years ago and had two convictions for driving while disqualified, his last offence

had Occurred four yeare below thia case. In that titoe he had developed from youth to maturity. His Honour s»id >' coiffd not be described as a case of wilful recklessness, but the jury must have taken the vtexv—as he did—that Cooper failed to act as a prudent and responsible motorjst • • "You should have Appreciated that the sftuatiwi called for extreme care;” he told Cooper. "You should have reduced your speed substantially, kept a good lookout and made sure that you could cope with any situation that could arise. "I take the View that the jury was satiafied that you were going too fast and failed to keep a proper lookout in. the circumstances, Resulting in this tragedy.” It was a case which he thought could be dealt With by a fine, and although he would normally have disqualified Cooper from obtaining a licence for five yeara in this case he would take into account the effect that would have on his trade as a motor mechanic.