$3000 fine follows fatality charges

Press, 20 July 1984, Page 15

$3000 fine follows fatality charges

A sickness beneficiary whose driving led to the deaths of two passengers when his car went off the Opawa Road bridge into the Heathcote River on August 17 last year was fined a total of $3OOO when he appeared for sentence in the District Court yesterday on two fatal-driving offences. Imposing fines and driving licence disqualification on John Laurence Smith, aged 42, Judge Paterson said the evidence was sufficiently clear for the jury to accept, as he did, that the defendant had been in a type of competing or racing situation with another car, at high speed. Defence counsel (Mr J. J. Brandts-Giesen) had sought a fine instead of imprisonment and submitted that the defendant’s “error of judgement” had consisted of his having reacted unwisely to “provocation” by the driver of the other car. The defendant had been found guilty by a jury early this month of charges of dangerous driving causing the deaths of Peter John Douglas Thompson, aged 39, and Murray Robert Thomas Kinley, aged 22, late in the evening of August 17. He had denied both offences. Judge Paterson imposed fines of $l5OO on each charge, and cancelled the defendant’s driving licence for two years. Evidence at the trial had been that the defendant’s car had been seen driving side by side with another car at excessive speed along Opawa Road, shortly before the accident, about 10.15 p.m. An oncoming motorist stopped when confronted by the cars and one car went to his right and continued on while the defendant’s car

went to his left and struck the bridge and continued into the river. The defendant had said in evidence that the other car had cut across in front of him and then followed close behind his vehicle. When it finally moved away he went to brake his car to a stop but his foot slipped on the accelerator. After extricating his foot he looked up to see the bridge lights ahead. The defendant said he wore a built-up right shoe because of a previous accident.

Mr Brandts-Giesen submitted that the defendant had been the unfortunate victim of circumstances. The other driver had got away “scot free.” It was he who had set up the defendant and caused him to make the error of judgment.

The defendant and his passengers were full of fear of the conduct of the other motorist; he should not have followed the advice of his friends to continue driving. His dangerous driving had consisted of the way he reacted to the other motorist’s actions. Mr Brandts-Giesen said the defendant was of excellent character and with no previous convictions. He was not a “harum-scarum” driver without any regard for his fellow man. Mr Brandts-Giesen said the defendant had consumed liquor during the evening, but evidence was that his blood-alcohol ratio was within the legal limit. He was an epileptic, an affliction that could cause the sufferer difficulty in reacting to emotional strain. This probably explained his greater fear than others would have shown in the situation which confronted him.

Mr Brandts-Giesen said the defendant had a severe

handicap arising from an accident nine years ago, which had left one leg shorter than the other, causing him to wear a surgical boot. Mr Brandts-Giesen submitted that a very strong contributing factor to the accident had been the defendant’s foot jamming in the control pedals immediately before the accident Mr Brandts-Giesen said the offences had resulted from an isolated lapse by the defendant. The deaths of his two friends had been out of all proportion to the dangerous driving which was found to have taken place. The defendant had been haunted by the deaths of his two friends since the accident. The Judge said liquor had been an element in the driving, although the defendant had been under the statutory blood-alcohol level. It was likely that there had been some degree of provocation from the other driver, and there might have been some encouragement from his passengers. However, the evidence was sufficiently clear for the view that the defendant had been in a competing or racing situation with another car at high speed. The Judge said that he hoped the defendant, and other motorists, would reflect upon their responsibilities at all times, not only to other road users but towards passengers in their own vehicles. Drivers had a heavy duty in this regard. The Judge said that this duty extended also to commercial vehicles such as buses, trains, and aircraft. There was a very heavy burden at all times on those in control of vehicles.