SUPREME COURT Decision reserved in motorway case

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32715, 18 September 1971, Page 19

SUPREME COURT Decision reserved in motorway case

Decision was reserved by Mr Justice WilsOn in the Supreme Court yesterday on an appeal by way of case stated by the Ministry of Transport against a decision of a magistrate in dismissing a charge against Lawrence Clement Dawson, a loaderdriver, of failing to drive as near as practicable to the left on the Northern Motorway. His Honour also reserved his decision on an appeal by David Saunders Wickham, a driver, against a conviction on a charge of failing to keep to the left in Memorial Avenue. The magistrate ordered Wickham u to pay costs of $5. Both appeals were heard together. Mr N. W. Williamson appeared for the ministry, Mr M. J. Glue for Dawson, and Mr J. R. Fox for Wickham. Mr Williamson said that the appeals involved two conflicting decisions by magistrates on the duty of motorists where the roadway was divided into more than one lane. The case raised a question of importance because it affected the day-to-day motoring of persons using motorways and laned highways. When the magistrate

gave his decision on Dawson he invited the ministry to appeal. On December 26, 1970, a traffic officer saw Dawson travelling on the Northern Motorway from the Waimakariri River Bridge to Belfast in the right lane at a speed of 30 to 40 miles an hour. The speed limit was 60 miles an hour. “In my submission the essential weakness in the magistrate’s decision is the artificial construction he places on the word ‘roadway,’ ” said Mr Williamson. There had been very few recent decisions about regulation 6, one of the oldest in the book, under which the charge was brought. The regulation had preceded the present complex multi-lane highway systems. The regulations stated that every driver at all times shall keep as near as practicable to the left, Mr Williamson said.

Mr Glue said that the decision: of the Court on the case would be a vital one. When the ministry prosecuted Dawson it had not acted with any justification by statute or regulations. Regulation 6, which did not envisage multi-lane highways, did not properly apply to the case. When the ministry prosecuted Dawson it appeared to be attempting to usurp the prerogative of Parliament and trying to enact its own legislation. "I submit that what Dawson did was What any reasonable motorist is entitled to do, and that is to travel in either lane,” Mr Glue. said. His Honour said that the case a conflict of driving interests. On the one hand there were those who advocated that drivers should keep as near as practicable to the left and on the other those who said that changing lanes was dangerous and should not be done, ■ 1 _■ » : -i