Soldier 'not ordered to drive carelessly’

Press, 20 December 1986, Page 11

Soldier 'not ordered to drive carelessly’

PA Dunedin While a part-time soldier from Dunedin was under a superior officer’s orders to drive, he was not ordered to drive carelessly, Judge Fogarty said in the District Court at Dunedin yesterday. The charge of careless driving causing injury against Donald Theodoras Vialle, aged 29, an insurance agent, related to an accident about 6 a.m. on January 14 when Territorial Army units were taking part in an annual camp.

Vialle fell asleep, his heavy vehicle went off the road, and landed in the bed of the Rangitata River.

His passenger, Mr Martin William Rowlands, is now confined to a wheelchair as a result of the injuries he suffered. Vialle, represented by

Mr Peter Churchman, denied the charge, which was heard earlier in the year in Ashburton. The vehicle driven by Vialle was one in a convoy of 40 Army vehicles. Mr Churchman argued that Vialle had been ordered by a superior officer to drive the vehicle. Judge Fogarty found that while Vialle certainly was under orders, the order was to drive, not to drive carelessly.

The Judge accepted that Vialle would have felt he was capable of driving and would be unaware that, because of lack of sleep in the preceding 24 hours, his judgment would have been impaired. During the defended hearing of the case, it was revealed that one of the drivers of a heavy vehicle in the convoy was aged only 17 at the time, had

no heavy traffic licence and had never driven a truck of that size before. Of all the drivers in the convoy, Vialle appeared to have been the most wide awake. He had arrived at the camp only the previous day, while others had been there for three days. In finding Vialle was careless, the Judge ruled that the carelessness was at the lower end of the scale, although the effects of the carelessness were greatly magnified. He also pointed out that the injured man, Mr Rowlands, had been driving earlier and, because he was sleepy, he had asked his commanding officer to relieve him of driving duty.

The Judge said there was no reason to think that the same facility would not have been available to Vialle.

He convicted Vialle and fined him $2OO, with $38.50 court costs and witnesses expenses of $3OO, which related only to the complainant.

No order was made disqualifying Vialle, as the Judge said he was prepared to find special circumstances for not imposing any disqualification.