“IN CHARGE OF A CAR”

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 March 1939, Page 12

“IN CHARGE OF A CAR”

I REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 1 (PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.( AUCKLAND, March 8. A request for an interpretation of the phrase “in charge of a car” in its application to intoxication charges against motorists was made to Mr. Justice Fair in the Supreme Court, to-day. Counsel stated that until there was a Supreme Court, determination of the precise meaning of these words, there would be innumerable cases where uncertainty would exist about whether a man who was not actually driving his car was in charge. The request was made during an appeal brought by Edward Watson, motor mechanic (Mr. Hall Skelton), against a sentence by Mr. C. R. OnWalker, S.M., of fourteen days’ imprisonment with hard labour, the suspension of his licence for the remainder of its term, and an order that no further licence be issued tb him for twelve months. Watson was charged with being intoxicated in charge of a car in Wellesley Street. Mr. G. S. R. Meredith opposed the appeal. In his judgment, the Magistrate said that Watson and a companion were seen by a constable to be arguing with a porter at the door of an hole 1 . The accused was in a siate of intoxication. The constable asked him if he intended to drive the car. The companion said he would do lhe driving and look after the accused. The constable had said that the two men went to the car, and the acctised got into the driver’s seat, with his companion beside him. The constable then walked towards them, and they immediately got. out of the car and changed seats. Before the constable saw them. Watson had asked his companion to go t’pr a, drive. He drove a certain distance, and then requested his companion to drive for him. They then drove to Wellesley Street, where they parked the car and went to the hotel.

The appeal was brought on the question of law only. Mr. Skelton submitting that the man driving the car was de facto in control of it. even if the other man had the ownership of the vehicle. The whole object of the legislation was to prevent people from driving their cars when intoxicated. The appellant bad relinquished control of his car, and was not in charge of it. His Honor dealt with the grounds on which the Magistrate had based hjs decision, referring chiefly to the intention of the appellant to drive the car when he and his companion got into it in Wellesley Street. On the ground of Watson’s intention to drive the car when the constable saw the two men getting into it. his Honor said he had no doubt at all. It was quite clear that there was enough evidence to justify the Magistrate finding that this was the intention of the appellant, and in holding that he was then in charge of the car.

His Honor said that “in charge of a motor vehicle" was a phrase which involved a wider meaning than did the word “drivers.” Before a person could be held liable, he should be actually driving a vehicle or be in it with the intention of driving. To carry a meaning beyond that might be extending the words beyond their natural meaning, with the exception that where the owner exercised active control over the driver so that the driver was the agent of the owner.

The appeal was dismissed. His Honor said he did not have the power to revise a sentence under an appeal on law.