No “Over-zealous” Using Of Breath Analysers

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31865, 18 December 1968, Page 34

No “Over-zealous” Using Of Breath Analysers

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, December 17. Law enforcement departments would keep an internal check on the use of every i breath analyser in an effort to restrain over-zealous officers and prevent victimisation, 'the Minister of Transport (Mr Gordon) told Parliament today.

He was replying during the committee stages of the Transport Amendment Bill to the fear expressed by Opposition members that when breath tests were introduced officers would make random checks of drivers rather than rely on suspicious behaviour by drivers. Dr A. M. Finlay (Lab., Waitekere) had moved an amend■ment to a clause in the bill which would require officers to establish to the satisfaction of the Court that they had, tn fact, good cause to suspect a driver before stopping him and administering a breath test. Moving the amendment, Dr Finlay said: “All 1 ask is that officers be required to prove their motive for stopping a driver.” It had been found in Britain that only 50 per cent of drivers stopped recorded a positive reading on the breath analyser. This was not a high enough percentage. Similarly, he said, there [was widespread complaint in Australia that random checks were being made. In both countries assurances had been given that good cause to suspect a driver was needed before a check was made. Court’s Duty Mr Gordon replied that the member’s amendment would also need the words: Provided that insufficient cause to suspect was not held as a defence against the charge. “If not, the Court will be

required to first ascertain whether there was good cause to suspect, even : f the driver was found to be drunk.” He gathered from what Dr Finlay had said that the amendment was aimed at curbing over-zealous officers. But departments would keep a record of every tube used. This would allow a check on over-zealous officers, or whether an officer was victimising any one person. “I believe this will satisfy the member," Mr Gordon said. Good Will Mr J. L. Hunt (Lab., New Lynn) said he hoped the breath tests would be administered in a “generous” way. An over-zealous attitude [would break down the good [will between law enforcement officers and the public. [ Earlier, the Leader of the [Opposition (Mr Kirk) expressed his concern that “good cause to suspect” might not be sufficient wording. Under the bill, a traffic officer need only have “good cause to suspect” pefore ’’e may stop a driver and require him to submit to a breath test. Mr Kirk said that under this clause of the bill traffic officers of necessity would have to stop more people Who would otherwise at present not be stopped. “It is a highly erroneous viewpoint if the public believes just drunken drivers are going to be stopped. More Stoppings "The average driver must expect to be stopped more often. “The breath analyser as a deterrent can only act effi-

i cient ly if more motorists are ’ stopped,” said Mr Kirk. Dr Finlay called a division ■ on the amendment, arid this ; was lost by 32 votes to 30. • The Leader of the Social : Credit Political League, Mr , V. F. Cracknell (Hobson) [ voted for the amendment. Dr Finlay also moved an- [ other amendment. As the bill stood, any driver refusing a , blood test would be auto- ! matically convicted. Dr Finlay moved an amendment that the Court should , draw any inference it deemed , proper from refusal. Mr Gordon said that to accept the amendment would ; “gravely weaken” the proj posed legislation. Amendment Lost ! “We might find a loophole' ; being used to escape just . deserts,” Mr Gordon said. ■ This amendment was lost ' on voices. The bill, among other points, describes breath and . blood tests for suspected j drunken drivers. . It creates a new offence of ) driving with a blood-alcohol level in excess of 100 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 . millilitres of blood. This . offence will carry a maximum penalty of one month’s imprisonment or a $2OO fine. The bill when passed Will also remove parking offences from criminal jurisdiction and provides for an extension of the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace in certain traffic offences. Stiffer fines are also provided against heavy vehicle loading. Parking Fines Mr Gordon said the new maximum parking fine, which under the bill would be paid to the local authority would be: half an hour, 50 cents; half an hour to an hour, $1.25; one hour to an hour and a half, $2.25: one hour and a half to two hours. $3.50; more than two hours, $5. Replying to Mr Hunt the Minister said the Government ( had already allocated $20,000 * for publicity purposes to edu- ; cate the public on the new J breath-blood test offence. 1 “The Transport Depart- } inent is printing a circular 1 on all details and implications of the test,” he said. *

[ The circular would be distributed to traffic offices and police stations. “Fair Price” He expected the average re- [ tail price for the breath-! analyser to be between 70; and 75 cents, said Mr Gordon.) This was regarded as a fair' price, but with Transport Department bulk ordering of I the analysers it could vary. . The bill was committed.