MOTORIST ACQUITTED

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 24, 23 October 1936, Page 13

MOTORIST ACQUITTED

Action Under “Hit-and-Run” Section

JURY RETURNS VERDICT WITHOUT RETIRING

Without retiring a jury, on the direction of Mr. Justice Johnston, returned a verdict of not guilty against Leslie James McPike, mechanic, 41 years, in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday, on a charge under section 5, of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1936.. The count, which was one of the first heard under this new statute, was one of failing to stop his motor-car after ;iu accident, and to ascertain whether ho had injured anyone. The Act provides for a penalty Of five years’ imprisonment, or a fine of £5OO.

The Crown prosecutor, Mr. W. H. Cunningham, conducted the Crown’s case, and Mr. T. P. McCarthy appeared for accused.

The offence with which accused was charged was first made a crime by Statute ou July 31 of this year, explained Mr. Cunningham. The particular section of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1936, under which the charge was laid, was really aimed at “hit-and-run” motorists. It was designed to make it a criminal offence for the driver of a motor vehicle, having struck or injured some other person, to get away .as auickly as

possible from the scene of the accident, and to leave other people to establish his identity later.

After outlining the provisions of the section, which requires the driver to stop and to render all practicable assistance to any person injured, Mr. Cunningham said it was the duty of the driver of a motor-ear concerned in a motor accideut to be in the forefront of the scene, and to get out of his car to ascertain whether or not everything was all right. In considering the ease, it was the duty of the jury to examine carefully the provisions of the Act, and, having done that, to decide whether accused had measured up to the standard required by this new law. The accident occurred at the intersection of Vivian and Taranaki Streets at about 6.40 p.m. on Saturday, August 15, the night being wet. Counsel explained how the accident happened, and mentioned that it was a matter of a few minutes before the driver of a small car, a Mr. Burns, had began to look round for the driver of the other vehicle, but he did not appear. There was some evidence that the driver did stop, but there was no evidence for the Crown to say that he ever got out of h ; is car, or that he was on the scene following the collision. Burns was given a number by a spectator, and accused was later located as the owner of the car. If that was tlie position up till 7 p.m., it seemed very doubtful if accused had measured up to the standard of the requirements under the Statute.

About 8 p.m. a police sergeant and a constable went to accused’s house, and before interviewing accused they had a look at his car, which was standing outside. It was damaged at the rear. Accused admitted having been involved in the accident, and when asked why he had not stopped and rendered assistance to the people in the small car, he replied that he did not know the other car had overturned. Later in the night accused went to the Mount Cook police 'station, When he told a constable that he had hit a car, but did not think he hit it hard enough to knock it over. A Simple Defence.

Mr. McCarthy said the defence was very simple. It would be proved that accused did stop, did go back after the accident, and did ascertain whether anyone was injured. Accused had noticed that the car had capsized, and he had seen the occupantg being assisted out of the vehicle. He had inquired as to whether the people were injured. Someone had pointed out to him that he had left his car standing on the tram-line, and he had moved it. He then returned' to the scene a second time, and as he had no overcoat and was soaked through he had been advised to go home, as everything was all right:. Mr. Cunningham said it was not the duty of the Crown to press for a conviction where it had been shown that an accused person had performed the duties which were demanded of him. Witnesses for the defence in this case had proved that accused had stopped and ascertained whether any persons were injured as a result of the collision.

“After what has been said by counsel for the Crown 1 think you should have no difficulty in acquitting accused,” said Mr. Justice Johnston in his address to the jury. It was a great pity accused had not been more frank in his statements to the police, because the matter could have been cleared up much more quickly. In directing the jury to find a verdict of not guilty, his Honour said he could only direct them that it would be unsafe to convict accused on the evidence.