The Problem of Intoxicated Drivers

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 266, 6 August 1937, Page 13

The Problem of Intoxicated Drivers

Sir, —Quite a number of issues—main and side—are involved in justices dealing with cases of intoxicated driver® of motor vehicles. In my o'pinion it is not practicable to lay down a hard and fast rule for the imposition of penalties in this class of case, as circumstance® vary so greatly that each case should be decided on the evidence placed before the bench. The pitfail into which many an inexperienced justice of the peace falls is that he frequently allows himself to be swayed by the fact that the accused man. requires his car in the interests of his avocation, and legal luminaries are ever ready to advance this alleged argument, which always leaves me cold. I contend that the court’s first duty is to those who use the roads in their sober senses; and if a person requires a car in his business, then most assuredly the onus is on him to see that, while d'riving, he refrains from partaking of liquor in such quantities as to impair his judgment and his vision. If he fails to do this and is convinced of being intoxicated — not drunk—while in charge of a car, then, in the interests of the public safety and as a warning to others, his licence should be cancelled.

The panacea is not jail, nor is it heavy fines, but it is cancellation of every drunken driver’s licence and the publication of his name. This will keep the drunken driver off the road.

The reply by justices to Mr. Semple’s complaint against inadequate and inconsistent sentences should be a getting together of groups of justices in the various centres for instruction under the magistrates. They should go to school under these experts and arrive at some degree of uniformity in regard to—(a) The cancellation of the licence of every driver of a motor vehicle who is convicted of intoxication, excepting in absolutely border-line cases. (b) The non-suppression of the names of all such offenders, on the ground that publication is a part of the penalty, for the general public should be informed of the identity of all persons who may be likely to be driving in defiance of an order of the court made in the interests of the safety of those using the roads. I hold that whereas driving without being the holder of a driver’s licence may in some circumstances be a venial offence, yet, where a man whose licence has been cancelled by the court as a part of a penalty for having been intoxicated while in charge of a motor vehicle, drives a car in defiance of the court, he should be fined heavily. I agree with Mr. Semple that there is need of improvement in the manner in which some justices of the peace handle these cases, but I do not agree that the remedy is to amend the law in the direction of preventing such cases being dealt with by other than stipendiary magistrates. Rather I urge that some active steps be taken With a view to educating justices and awakening them to a sense of their responsibility. Why should justices who have a sense of real justice and the courage to make real and adequate convictions—and there are such competent justices in New Zealand—suffer for the shortcomings of the incompetent, the inept, and the spineless?—l am. etc.. J. P. EUSTACE. Feilding, July 2.