The courts First carless-day offence ‘after party’

Press, 11 October 1979, Page 4

The courts First carless-day offence ‘after party’

A man whom, his counsel i said, fell asleep at a party [ and then drove home after h awakening at 3.45 a.m. hash become the first offender pro- 1 secuted in Christchurch for a i breach of the carless-day regulation. i The man. Gordon Roger , Marks, aged 50. a freezing worker (Mr D. J. R. Holder- i ness) pleaded guilty in the:' Magistrate’s Court yesterday! 1 to a charge of driving on his'! nominated earless day, Sun-j, day and was fined $5O. Thej; maximum fine is $4OO. He also admitted a charge! of driving with an excessive 1 level of alcohol in his blood. * 132 milligrams, and was fined $3OO and his driving licence 1 was cancelled for six months. Mr F. G. Paterson S.M., I said the defendant had of- 1 fended “with both barrels.” < He said he acknowledged that the carless-day breach ! was the first to come before i the court and to some extent i

:it was a “warning occasion.” The defendant had clearly. [overlooked that it was his ; earless day and had not deliberately defied the regulations. However, the regulation to be effective, must have some! teeth to it. I Senior traffic, sergeant H. :J. McMorran said the defen-1 i dant was stopped at 3.55 a.m. [on Sunday, August 12, in Bealey Avenue after being; seen to be weaving on the' roadway. A blood test showed the defendant’s alcohol ratio to be 132 milligrams. His earless day, SundayJ had commenced from 2 a.m, Mr McMorran said this was the first case to come before the Court in relation to the carless-day regulation. Mr Holdemess said the defendant was the victim of rather unfortunate circumstances. He had been to a'

’ party and had his last drink! Gat midnight. He decided not! ;lto go home then as he! ■ thought he had had rather ■ i too much to drink. He decided to stay on and rhave something to eat, but si went to sleep in front of a [fire. He awoke at 3.45 a.m. (and decided he had over- . [ stayed his welcome, so set off J for home immediately. i| He had driven a consider-j ;jable distance towards his! ! I home when stopped. Only when the traffic of-1 ![ficer drew attention to hisi >i carless-day sticker did the de-1 ifendant appreciate that hej J had driven when not permit- ( ted. He had not set out to ; flout the regulation. Mr Holdemess said the de- ; fendant had a “long and unblemished” driving record, ■ with only one minor breach ! 30 years ago. He regretted ■ the present offences, which i'were out of character.