USE OF MOTOR CARS IN BURGLARIES

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22624, 29 April 1948, Page 4

USE OF MOTOR CARS IN BURGLARIES

THE Auckland Grand Jury which heard Mr. Justice Fair suggest that, the law should he amended to enable certain types of criminals to he prohibited from owning or using motor cars acted wisely in recommending that some such legislation should be enacted. His Honour struck a convincing note when he pointed out that the use of ears increased the range of burglaries and facilitated these nefarious operations in every way. He was also able to draw attention to a comparatively recent crime when one of three men who stole a safe'from an hotel near Gisborne was found to own a motor car despite his previous convictions. The case for this proposed legislation is a very strong one. Even if it did not prove 100 per cent effective, it would at least greatly discourage some forms of burglary and reduce the risk of others being successful. Although it is possible that long-range thefts could still be attempted by malefactors who stole a car before setting out on their second crime, it is never very long after a vehicle is reported missing that efforts are being made to trace it. Obviously this is a big disadvantage to a burglar.

Incidentally, it is high time the distinction is removed between theft and “conversion” of a motor car. To most people this distinction must appear a hair-splitting legal quibble which tends to protect an offender against a real deterrent. There should be no vestige of maudlin sympathy for a man who drives off in a car that does not belong to him. He has actually stolen it, if only for the time being. He lias also stolen the amount of petrol used in the process and stolen the cost of a certain amount of depreciation. In short., he is a thief rather than a “converter.”