Driver’s Appeal Fails

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30498, 21 July 1964, Page 10

Driver’s Appeal Fails

Mr Justice Maearthur, in a reserved decision in the Supreme Court yesterday, dismissed an appeal by Robert Donald, aged 19, an engineer, against his conviction in the Magistrate’s Court on a charge of carelessly using a motorvehicle. His Honour said that. the appellant was driving his 1927 Model T Ford along Rolleston avenue northwards about 4.50 p.m. on February 19. At the intersection of Rolleston avenue and Armagh street the appellant- and an elderly cyclist who had come out Hagley Park were involved in a collision.

There were give-way signs on both sides of Rolleston avenue at that point, and the cyclist, was therefore under an obligation to give way to the appellant. The appellant had said he first saw the cyclist about 40 yards away. He sounded his horn and moved to the middle of the road. When he saw the cyclist was not stopping he swerved further to the right and braked. He then swerved back to the left and struck the rear wheel of the cycle at a speed of about 10 miles an hour. The point of impact was on the appellant’s righthand side of the road.

His Honour .said the magistrate in his judgment had said he assumed in the appellant’s favour that the cyclist might not have complied with his duty to give way to traffic. That, however, did not end the appellant’s duty, because the driver did not go on in regard of other persons using the roadway simply because they had not complied with the regulations. The magistrate had considered it a vital point that the appellant first saw the cyclist come out against the

give-way signs when-the appellant was 40 yards away and had ample time to cope with the situation. His Honour said that he had read the evidence and visited the scene of the accident, and in his opinion the magistrate came to the right decision. Prosecutions His Honour said that, Without expressing. any view on the question of whether the cyclist had committed a breach of the traffic regulations, he wished to pass comment on several cases which had come before him recently. In each, two vehicles had been involved in a collision. In each case only one driver had been prosecuted, although the evidence given in court had shown that the other driver also might have been guilty of an offence. “I realise that in some cases the information gathered by the prosecuting authority. does not plainly justify the prosecution of both drivers and that It is only when the matter is thrashed out in court that the full circumstances become known,” said his Honour.' “But if the Information gathered by the prosecuting authority does. show, reasonable and proper grounds for prosecuting both drivers, it is my opinion that the prosecuting authority should not hesitate to prosecute them both’. .

“Moreover, cases may well occur where, one driver only having been prosecuted in the first instance, the other driver should be prosecuted later as a result of the evidence given at the hearing,’’ said his Honour.

Mr I. C. J. Polson appeared for the Crown, and Mr B. McClelland for Donald.