New bill allows traffic pursuit on private land

Press, 9 December 1989, Page 10

New bill allows traffic pursuit on private land

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

Legislation giving sweeping powers to traffic officers and the police to pursue offending motorists on to private property was introduced to Parliament yesterday. The Transport Amendment Bill (No. 4) is the Government’s response to more than 400 recent cases of drivers trying to evade capture by seeking sanctuary on private property. The publicity this has received has prompted the Government to introduce legislation that will become law before the Christ-mas-New Year holiday period. It was described by the Opposition spokesman on justice, Mr Paul East, as providing “all the trappings of a police State.” “In East Germany they are getting rid of laws like this,” said Mr Doug Graham (Nat., Remuera). The bill will be sent to Parliament’s non-partisan Road Safety Committee for the police, Ministry of Transport, Law Society, Council for Civil Liberties and a few other groups, to comment on.

It will be returned to Parliament next week and is due to pass into law before Parliament rises for Christmas.

The Opposition spokesman on transport, Mr Maurice McTigue (Nat., Timaru), said the Opposition would not frustrate the progress of the legislation through Parliament, but that did not mean it supported the bill. The Minister of Transport, Mr Jeffries, said the two-clause bill would permit police and traffic officers to enter private property to get evidence for drink-driving offences. This power of entry would have two prerequisites — • That the constable or traffic officer was “freshly pursuing” the person. • That the constable and traffic officer had “good cause’ to suspect a person had committed an offence by failing to stop when requested or signalled to do so or to remain stopped for as long as reasonably necessary. Mr Jeffries said lack of clarity in the law created a situation in which public safety was at risk. There was disagreement over it among lawyers and even on the Court of Appeal.

“Drunken drivers are potential killers and cannot be allowed to

escape responsibility for their actions,” he said. The powers in the bill could be exercised only when drivers had failed to stop or had not stopped long enough for information or evidence for a possible drunkdriving charge to be obtained. It also allowed traffic officers to have more powers of arrest on private property, a power already held by the police, he said. Such powers of arrest were

strictly limited and expressly defined. The new law was aimed at saving lives. Serious regard had been given to the principle of protecting a person’s right to privacy on private property wherever possible. “But we are dealing here with a small group who deliberately seek to flout the law and endanger other people,” Mr Jeffries said. “The powers in the bill are necessary in the greater public interests, and the rights of innocent people will not be threatened.” The incentive that might exist now for drunk drivers to flee to

private property must be removed before the holiday period.