Doubts about pound jurisdiction

Press, 18 November 1981, Page 6

Doubts about pound jurisdiction

PA • Auckland An appeal by a chief inspector of police against his conviction on charges involving injury to a traffic officer : has raised doubts-about a traffic officer’s jurisdiction inside a vehicle pound. Mr Justice Holland said yesterday that it was an important question. He reserved decision on the appeal'in the High Court at Auckland and asked the Crown to’ prepare further written submissions on the matter. ’ . His . Honour heard that Ronald Victor Downie had allegedly i driven his impounded car out of the Auckland '. City ' Council traffic pound, ignoring a traffic ~ officer’s signal to stop. •

The traffic officer, Ross Endicott Davies, was hurt in an attempt to seize the key of the moving car. Downie was convicted in the District Court at Auckland on charges of failing to stop, causing bodily injury to the traffic officer by carelessly using a car, failing to stop after an accident involving injury, and failing to see whether anyone had been injured. He has appealed against the convictions and sentence, comprising a fine of $975, costs of $240, and an 18month driving disqualification. Mr Peter Williams, for Downie, said that the traffic officer was outside his jurisdiction to order a car to stop since .the pound was not a

public road under the provisions of the Transport Act. - Mr Michael Ruffin, for the Crown: It is an over-state-ment to say that traffic officers can stop vehicles only on public roads. His Honour: You stagger, me. His Honour said that Mr Ruffin was suggesting that a traffic officer had the power to interfere with the way a judge used his car in his private backyard. “I don’t want to get into the motorway argument but this is important,” his Honour said; (The Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) has commented on a District Court judge’s recent dismissal of charges against a Springbok tour protester on the ground that the Crown‘ had . not proved .that

the north-western motorway was a gazetted motorway.) Mr Williams submitted that the traffic officer had not sufficiently identified Downie as being the driver of the car involved in the incident at the pound. The officer had seen the driver for only a few seconds through a car . window covered in rain drops. The officer’s attempt to seize the car keys was, Mr Williams said, “a foolish and dangerous procedure in the circumstances.”

Downie had at first told investigating officers that he had gone sailing on the day of the incident and had lent his car to an acquaintance. The District Court judge found that Downie had lied after Chief Superintendent E. G. Perry, of the Auckland

Police, told the Court that he saw Downie in a bank that day. Mr Williams said that ‘ there had been no attempt to offer an alibi defence before the Court and if the Crown wished to rely on Downie’s initial statement it should prove that it was impossible for him to have gone sailing from Okahu Bay at 10.30 a.m. and return to the city by 1.30 p.m. when he visited the bank. Downie had his own permanent parking space at the Central Police. Station, Mr Williams said. The fact that his car was towed to the pound from a parking space one block away from the station suggested that it was not being used by Downie at the time. .■?.