SUPREME COURT “Case Of Small Compass But Great Importance”

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31167, 17 September 1966, Page 19

SUPREME COURT “Case Of Small Compass But Great Importance”

A motorist three times convicted of exceeding 30 miles an hour may be disqualified from driving for the third offence. But a man twice convicted may not be disqualified on the ground that a previous conviction for driving “at a speed which might have been dangerous” constitutes a third breaking of the speed limit, ruled Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday.

The case—in which Russell Lindsay Mahan, a trainee salesman (Mr W. F. Brown) appealed against three months’ disqualification from driving was described as of small compass, but very great importance. The point in issue, turning on the interpretation of part 1 of the third schedule to the Transport Act (listing penalties), had caused traffic officers and lawyers great difficulty, because they ‘.‘did not know the answer,” Mr Brown said. His Honour: We’ll do our best to give it. Mahan had been convicted last week for exceeding 30 miles an hour, and again this week having on August 5 been detected by microwave driving through Rakaia at 51

miles an hour on which second conviction he was fined £l5 and disqualified. “Convicted on Wednesday, and appeals on Friday he’s getting speedy justice,” said his Honour. Conviction Revealed

Mahan had been disqualified after himself revealing his conviction for driving at potentially dangerous speed at Oamaru in 1964, said Mr Brown. But driving “at a speed which might have been dangerous” did not presuppose Mahan had exceeded 30 miles an hour because one could drive dangerously,- in certain circumstances at much lower speeds. Could it be said that Mahan had then exceeded 30 miles an hour unless he had been specifically charged, and a plea entered?

Mr Brown also raised Stewart’s case in which Mr Justice Hardie Boys had laid down that “before an offender’s licence may be imperilled for an offence involving speed alone, there must be such offence committed after two previous convictions for the same type of offence.” His Honour, referring to a previous decision he had given counter to Mr Justice

Hardie Boys, and which was reversed by the Court of Appeal, said: “Well, I’m not hitting out again.” (Laughter). During submissions for the Crown, Mr C. M. Roper pointed out "the ridiculous situation” in the case by which Mahan was not liable to disqualification, it was said, but if his first offence at Oamaru had been the less serious one of exceeding 30 miles an hour, he would have been. His Honour’s Decision

His Honour said it was submitted that the appellant’s latest conviction for exceeding 30 miles an hour was not a third conviction for that offence, because driving “at a speed which might have been dangerous” was an offence which could be committed without exceeding a speed limit “and I must accept that that is the case,” said his Honour.

“That is really sufficient to uphold this appeal,” he said but Stewart’s case had laid down that the third offence on which the motorist was disqualified must be committed after the two previous convictions.

In the present case, said his Honour, the latest offence was committed on August 5, while the previous (second) offence had resulted in conviction only last week. “Had this matter come before me without previous authority, I would have found difficulty in reading the wording in the schedule,” said his Honour. “But the matter having been decided carefully, and in a reserved judgement, by my brother Hardie Boys, I dan, of course, take no other course than to follow him.

Mahan’s appeal was therefore allowed, and his disqualification from driving quashed.