THREE MONTHS’ JAIL FOR MOTORIST

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 113, 6 February 1936, Page 6

THREE MONTHS’ JAIL FOR MOTORIST

Negligent Driving Charge

SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT

AFTER RACES

Declaring that, generally speaking, drivers under the infiueuce of liquor who placed innocent lives in peril must expect to lose their liberty tor a time, Mr. Justice Smith, in the ■Wellington Supreme Court yesterday, sentenced Robert Hunter Service, a bankaudit inspector, to three months’ imprisonment on a charge of neglige*, driving, thereby causing bodily injury. His Honour said he would request the Minister of Justice to arrange for Service to be kept apart from the ordinary prisoners. His license was cancelled and lie was prohibited from taking out another for two years. Mr. R. Hardie Boys, counsel for prisoner. referred to Service’s excellent record both as a citizen and as ■ a driver. He said there was nothing of the hit-and-run element about the case and fortunately nobody had been ‘killed. The only element which could cause the court to deal with the master seriously was the question of liquor. Ho desired, however, to draw attention to the fact that prisoner had not been charged with being intoxicated while in charge of a motor-car. Mr Boys produced a certificate by Dr. Mirams, Lower Hutt, to the effect that he had seen Service about 20 minutes after the accident and that in view of the circumstances he had taken particular notice of him, especially in regard to, the question of liquor. Although he was aware that Service had had some liquor he showed no signs whatever in his speech or conversation. Counsel urged that the case should be treated on- the basis of negligence common to what occurred in many similar actions, and that the court could, without removing the deterrent of punishment from bad driving on the roads, deal leniently with the prisoner. The Public Safety. “It is very distressing indeed for a court to have to deal with a case such as yours,” said his Honour addressing prisoner. “You are a maa of good character, you have had an excellent reputation hitherto, you have no doubt suffered severely as a result of this occurrence, and you have also done everything you could, according to the evidence, to repair the damage so far as monetary compensation can go in favour of these injured people. On the other hand I have to balance your individual circumstances against the requirements of the public safety. I must strip this matter to its essentials and consider what should be done having regard to your individual character and reputation on the one hand and the requirements of the public safety on the other. “You were driving a car home from the races and you had reached. Lower Hutt—a thickly-populated area. The day was October 20 and the .time was a quarter past six in the evening,. It would be daylight and there wduld be no lack of visibility. It is said there was not much traffic at that particular part of the road, and although there is evidence that there was some rain, there is nothing to show there was any real difficulty in managing a motor-car.

“You approached a , motor-car containing the driver—Mr. Carmichael—his wife and child. This car was on its correct side, its right-hand wheels only being on the bitmuen.. The visibility was so good that he saw you a quarter of a mile away. You were driving .a small car and driving at what must be regarded as an excessive speed; indeed, at what must be regarded as a grossly excessive speed. It is estimated by two witnesses, one of them a taxi-pro-prietor, at 50 miles an hour. Although Visibility was quite good your car started to zig-zag. and swerved right across the road into the other car, pushed it across the road, capsized it and made It a complete wreck. The occupants suffered severe injuries.

Drinks on Way Home,

“After the impact you were able to stand steadily ou your feet, although you had had a Knock on the head and were no doubt suffering from shock. Shortly after the accident you were questioned by two constables and you said you did not remember anything about if. The doctor’s certificate, which was read to-day, goes to show that the fact that you were concussed would be to prevent you from remembering and also, I think, perhaps to get rid of the effect of the alcohol which you had taken. The constables’ evidence is that your breath smelt of alcoholic liquor although your speech was normal. You admitted you had four or live stouts at the races that afternoon. Then there wtts this significant fact. On the way in you stopped at the Taita Hotel and had two stouts. In my opinion the inevitable conclusion is that your drinking must have affected your driving. I think you were driving partly under the influence of liquor.. “In these circumstances,” added his Honour, “I have to consider how the public should be protected against driving of this kind. Taking into account all the favourable circumstances set forth by your counsel, and he has put your ease very well indeed, it seems to me I cannot escape the conclusion that the punishment must be deterrent.”