RIGHT TO DISMISS TRIFLING CASE

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 71, 17 December 1937, Page 12

RIGHT TO DISMISS TRIFLING CASE

,Judge Upholds Decision Of Magistrate

LOCAL BODY’S APPEAL IS REJECTED By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, December 16An unsuccessful appeal against the decision of Mr. G. N. Morris, S.M.. of Whangarei, in dismissing a prosecution against a taxi driver for a breach of the traffic regulations was brought before Mr. Justice Callan in the Supreme Court. The taxi driver, Stanley Ruddell (Mr. Trimmer), had been charged with exceeding the speed limit of 30 miles an hour withiu the borough of Whangarei. The appeal was made by the Whangarei Borough Council, through its traffic inspector. Janies Henry Ashton (Dr. McElroy). The facts were admitted, and the appeal was solely upon a point of law. The magistrate gave as his reasons for dismissing the case that there had been no danger to the public, that defendant was a good driver, that his speed was not greatly in excess of the limit, am! that the breach was occasioned by the inspector’s own conduct. Bound to Convict? Dr. McElroy submitted that these considerations were irrelevant. Ruddell had admittedly travelled for a short distance at 35 miles an hour. His Honour: If the needle bad flickered above 30 for a couple of seconds is the magistrate bound to convict? Dr. McElroy: I submit that he is. His Honour said it. seemed a dreadful thing if the magistrate had not the power in a proper case to give effect ri the maxim that the law does not concern itself with trifles. Dr. McElroy said the Act made the liability absolute, if a breach, however trifling, was admitted. Technical Breach. His Honour said he would not require to hear Mr. Trimmer. The facts as stated by the magistrate showed that the only cause that led the defendant for a very short space of time to exceed the 30 miles an hour limit was a reasonable endeavour to get away from the glaring lights of tlie vehicle behind him. He had no means of knowing the vehicle was the inspector’s. He occasioned no danger, and he was a good driver, which was reason for not subjecting him to conviction for a highly technical breach. “Too Trifling.” The real question was whether there was anything whatever in this particular statute to say that a magistrate should not exercise bis discretion and dismiss as too trifliug a case where there bad been a purely technical breach, added his Honour. Magistrates very frequently exercised such discretion, and he was certainly not going to declare that they had no power to do it.

“The decision of the magistrate was just, proper and sensible, and should have been accepted by the local body,” he said. “The appeal wiil be dismissed with costs £5/5/-.”