Policeman appeals

Press, 21 July 1976, Page 4

Policeman appeals

PA Auckland A policeman who appealed against conviction on a charge of driving with excess blood alcohol has had his appeal allowed in the Supreme Court at Auckland. The man was convicted in the North Shore Magistrate’s Court by Mr J. H. Murray, S.M., in February on charges of failing to accompany a traffic officer when required to do so and of driving with an excess alcohol level in his blood. Mr Justice Barker, in his reserved judgment, said that he derived little satisfaction in finding in favour of one law-enforce-ment officer who set out deliberately to thwart the legitimate efforts of other law-enforcement officers. “The principle transcends the personalities involved," he said. “Unless and until Parliament specifies with clarity the exact powers of traffic officers, both as to arrest and to entry on to private property, in the same way which it has particularised these powers for constables, cases like the present will continue to come before the courts. “One hopes that in any review of the blood-alco-hol legislation Parliament might give some attention to this problem.” The conviction arose from an incident in the early hours of October 24, 1975, when the appellant was driving along Lancaster Road, Beachhaven, and collided with another vehicle, properly parked at the kerb. The owners of the car were awakened by the noise of the impact and of the appellant revving his engine. They all met inside and exchanged names, addresses, and insurance companies.

Those people noticed the appellant smelt of liquor and was unsteady on his feet. He returned home, just around the block, and drank some beer. Two traffic officers arrived at his home about 20 minutes after the incident. One smelt liquor on the appellant’s breath. He told the traffic officer that he had drunk two or three bottles of beer since arriving home. The accident had caused some damage to property, but did not cause death or bodily injury. His only legal obligations were to stop and see if any person had been injured and, if required, to provide names, addresses, and registration plate numbers to a constable or traffic officer or to any person concerned.

He discharged those responsibilities. His Honour said that al-

though the appellant's conduct was not creditable for a policeman, he had no further duties arising from the incident. The appellant had admitted in the lower court hearing that one of the reasons for drinking the beer was to make more difficult any possible investigation into his sobriety when driving. His Honour said he did not think his motives mattered. The appellant, he said had worked long hours on that particular day and even if the accident had been his fault it was not

beyond the bounds of credibility that he would have sought some colace in alcohol to relieve both the trauma of the accident and his weariness His Honour said that after the appellant had ordered the two traffic officers to leave his premises they became trespassers. They had no right to ask for a breath te>t while trespassing on private property. He said there was no liability on the part of the appellant to give a bic,< !i test or a blood test or to accompany them.