A WIDER DISCRETION TO SUSPEND

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 20, 24 July 1934, Page 8

A WIDER DISCRETION TO SUSPEND

When a motorist is convicted of an offence under, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1924, the Court may (unless the motorist be a breaker of speed limit undergoing las' first, or second conviction) suspend' his driving licence. But in criminal cases a jury may refuse, for fairly obvious reasons, to convict. A mental attitude which says in effect "this man should not be convicted of a criminal offence" is not the sanie thing as a mental ■ altitude which says "this man's licence should continue." In oilier words, a verdict of not guilty of a crime does not amount to a verdict that the' licence should not be suspended. Why, then, should ihe Court's power to suspend . the driving licence be removed by the mere fact that, for certain reasons, no conviction is being entered? This question is raised by ihe suggestions made in the Supreme Court yesterday by his Honour the Chief Justice, who asks whether the Court's present power to suspend goes far enough. Either in a criminal action, 'or in a civil action, it may become evident that a-motorist will escape conviction or penally—and yet the evidence may make it clear that he is a driver who would be better off the road. Though the motorist be not convicted, shall the Court yet have power (with right of appeal)" to suspend the driving licence?