MOTORING OFFENCES

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 27, 1 August 1932, Page 6

MOTORING OFFENCES

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Most people wilr agree with the remarks of Mr. Justice Reed, made in the' Supreme" Court at Masterton yesterday, which werethe subject of your sub-leader m to-night's "Post." There have -been many cases .of death caused by negligent driving in which the accused has Seen acquitted by the jury .when, had similar negligence pf.almdstany dther kind" than that of driving a car been the cause of death, a conviction would almostfor certain have been recorded: ,:■ ■ .:■■ Mr. Justice Reed interprets the-juries' minds in these cases as follows'—'-Well the accused is a decent fellow—they generally are decent fellows—there' is nothing against him beforehand it is pretty hard luck on him that he has killed this person, and therefore he. will be excused." -With all due respect to:his Honour, 1 think a truer reading of the matter is that juries in these-cases would convict1 were it not that they fear the possible seventy of the sentence.. ' '

There is no doubt that the general, publiq, from whom jurors are drawn, do not regard negligent driving, even when,it ia wilful, reckless negligence, 'and is the cause of someone's death, as. a crime comparable witn, say, burglary, and they are, in consequence, extremely loath t'o convict when the accused might be sentenced to the same term in prison as would a burglar.- The results is this. A driver through gross negligence, has ah accident and injures a man. He is convicted, fined heavily, and perhaps has his licence "cancolled. Another' driver, due to similar •gross negligence, kills a man and gets off scot free. . .

Some time ago the L-.gislatuie realised that juries under these circumstances would not convict of manslaughter, and the Motor Vehicles Act made provision for tbe crime o£ negligent driving thereby causing death. This critrie is" identical with manslaughter, but the ■- maximum penalty is restricted to two years' hard labour, in the apparent hope. that juries would then be more willing to convict. That hope has not been realised to any extent, and, in my opinion, the remedy lies m allowing the jury to specify the maximum penalty to be imposed on conviction in these cases. This is, of course, a definite encroachment on the age-old prerogative of the Judge; and, as such,

would no doubt be unpalatable to the Bench, but it has already been done in effect by the provision of the above mentioned new crime, while, I believe, a jurycan convict of common assault instead of assault with violence or so as to cause actual bodily harm, with which' a man may be charged, thereby reducing the maximum penalty. . The pill, too, if pill it is, could be sugared, by simply making it competent for a jury to bring in a verdict of guilty of causing death through negligence of the first>_ second, or third degree, the first carrying, gay, a,,maximum penalty pf a fine, the second degree, imprisonment. not exceeding six months, and the third-degree, imprisonment not exceeding two years, all with -or without cancellation of driving licence. ■ . If, as Mr; Justice Reed: says, "It is of great importance that a person should not escape being convicted where the jury are thoroughly satisfied that there has been negligent driving of the car," this,-in my opinion, is one way of attaining the desiued result, and it would probably get away from the present anomaly of a negligent driver being able to kill with impunity, but to suffer punishment if he merely injures.—I am, etc., :" '"'•'■ J.-B; PARKER. • 29th July. - . .-.-' .■.