Supreme Court Ruling On Two Charges From Same Incident

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30793, 3 July 1965, Page 23

Supreme Court Ruling On Two Charges From Same Incident

A person charged with exceeding 30 m.p.h. in a city and also charged with exceeding 30 m.p.h. on a motorcycle while not wearing a crash helmet, both charges arising from the same incident, could be convicted on both charges, Mr Justice Wilson. said in a reserved decision in the Supreme Court yesterday. His Honour’s derision was on a case stated by the Magistrate’s Court for the opinion of the Supreme Court on a point of law arising from the hearing of two informations charging Colin Campbell Smith, a clerk, with both offences. “When the informations were called in the Magistrate’s Court on June 22 the defendant admitted that on the date alleged in the informations he drove a motoreyrie on Cashel street (to which a 30 m.ph. restriction applied) at a speed of 41 m.p.h. and that at the time he was not wearing an approved type of safety helmet,” his Honour said. The admissions included ail the facts necessary for convictions on both dffenccs. He formally pleaded guilty to a charge of exceeding 30 m.ph. and entered in effect a plea of autrefois convict in respect of the charge of exceeding 30 mp.h. while not wearing a crash helmet. For the purpose of the case stated it was agreed that Smith should be deemed to have been convicted on the charge of exceeding 30 m.p.h. The issue was whether the defendant having been convicted of a charge of exceeding 30 m.p.h. could lawfully be convicted of a charge of exceeding 30 m.p.h, while not wearing a crash helmet. “The principle involved is that no person should be put twice in peril of being, convicted of the same offence,” his Honour said.

His Honour said that to succeed on a plea of autrefois convict a defendant had to show that he had been convicted on a charge the matter of which was the same in whole or in part as that on which he was now charged. Part of the matter in each of the charges in the present case was the same: driving a motor-cycle at a speed exceeding 30 mjp.h. However, the additional ingredient of the second offenec was not wearing a safety helmet and that was wholly irrelevant to the charge of exceeding 30 m.p.h. Mr L. M. O’Reilly appeared for Smith and Mr A. Hearn appeared for the Christchurch City Council.