Dept. Defended In Glasses Case

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31077, 4 June 1966, Page 16

Dept. Defended In Glasses Case

At no time was satisfactory evidence presented to the Christchurch City Council which would have justified the withdrawal of a charge against a man recently convicted on a charge of not wearing visual aids while he was driving, said Mr J. F. Thomas, the Traffic Superintendent for the Christchurch City Council yesterday.

Mr Thomas was commenting on a leading article in “The Press” yesterday which questioned the good sense of bringing the charge when the defendant had no cause to wear glasses, but through a clerical error in the issue of his licence had been ordered to do so. Mr Thomas said the leading article gave the impression that the licence had been issued by the Christchurch City Council, but this was not so. It had been issued, with the condition concerning visual aids, by the Manukau Borough Council, Auckland. Mr Thomas said he resented the suggestion that the prosecution had proceeded through “stubborn bureaucracy.” He said that the City Council traffic department had leaned over backwards to clear up the matter satisfactorily, and that it was on the advice of an officer of the

department that the defendant applied to the Court for a rehearing. “At the time the motorist was being apprehended for failing to give way, the officer concerned noticed that he was not wearing visual aids as required by his licence,” Mr Thomas said. “The driver gave no explanation for this when he was questioned by the officer. After the issue of the traffic-offence notice, the motorist did not at any time indicate to this office that he was unaware of the endorsement to his licence, nor did he intimate that it had been stamped there incorrectly.

“Subsequently the case was heard in the Magistrate’s Court, Christchurch. The driver failed to appear, and was convicted and fined on both charges. “A few days later the motorist came into the office and spoke to Traffic Officer A. Laing. He intimated to Mr Laing that he had never been tested for visual aids and that he thought he had been unjustly treated. Mr Laing advised him to get in touch with the Manukau Borough Council, and then to apply for a rehearing. “Soon afterwards the dep-uty-registrar notified us that a rehearing had been granted on the charge concerning the visual aids. At the rehearing the defendant produced a new licence issued by the Manukau Borough Council with no endorsement. “At no time between the two hearings did this man produce evidence to us showing that he should not wear glasses, and in the absence of such evidence we had no reason at all to withdraw the charge. “The situation is now that if the motorist can show the Court that at no time has he had to wear visual aids, then he can apply for a further hearing, and have the conviction quashed.”

[Our leading article did not accuse the traffic department of “stubborn bureaucracy;” it did say that the proceedings created such an impression. The initial charge was undoubtedly laid without knowledge of the peculiar circumstances. In its unquestioned good offices in recommending a rehearing the department must surely have become aware of the unusual nature of the case and, if not then, it must have understood this at the second hearing, for the Magistrate certainly did. That, as our article said, was the time to withdraw the information and so obviate the technical, but apparently inevitable, conviction of the defendant. His only remedy after that was to appeal to the Supreme Court; but the department may still seek a rehearing if it believes, as we do, that precise law has here made bad sense.—Ed., “The Press.”]