The Hawera Star. FRIDAY. SEPTEMBER 16, 1927. A MINIMUM PENALTY.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 16 September 1927, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

FRIDAY. SEPTEMBER 16, 1927. A MINIMUM PENALTY.

Delivered every evening by 5 o’olock in Hawera, Manaia, Normanby, Okaiawa, Eltham, Mangaioki, Kaponga. Alton, Hurleyville, Patea, Waverley, Mokoia, Whakamara, Ohangai, Meremere. Prater Road and Ararata-

In view of the suffering, damage to property, and sometimes even loss of life caused by people, who drive cars while under the influence of liquor, there will be a good deal of sympathy with the suggestion made in the Legislative Council by Sir Thomas MacKcnzie this week that “there should be a stiffening up of the Motor Vehicles Act” in the direction of making it obligatory upon magistrates to cancel licenses in eases of motorists being guilty of negligence while drunk. But the point of view brought to bear on the question by the legal mind of Sir Francis Bell throws a rather diffierent light on the subject, and after reading his remarks it can be quite easily understood that no matter how much we might abhor the criminal carelessness of some irresponsible drivers, the laying down of a hard and fast rule in regard to penalty is not- the just way of correcting an evil. The demand for more drastic penalties for such breaches of the law and the flouting of the rights of other users of roads is not new. From time to time it has been urged by public-spirited citizens that the punishment should be made more severe, and it was only the other day that an influential body in the South Island seriously made the suggestion that the Government should consider throwing upon a driver charged with being drunk while in charge of a car the onus of proving that he was not intoxicated, thus relieving the State of the difficult task of proving that a man had taken sufficient liquor to impair his judgment. On the spur of the moment it is easy to approve of such recommendations, but a little further consideration reveals that by such means we would soon be endangering our reputation for dealing justly with all offenders against the law. Nothing so arbitrary as a regulation requiring that a man. so charged shall be deemed guilty unless he can satisfy the court to the contrary, or so inflexible as one that demands that all persons convicted of being drunk while in charge of a car shall forfeit their right to drive a car again, irrespective of the results of their misdemeanour, will right the position. The lirst suggestion is ruled out on the grounds that it is in direct opposition to the principle upon which the British people have administered justice for many years—the principle that a man charged with a crime ’ must be deemed innocent until he is proved guilty. The second, relating to the fixing of a minimum penalty to cover a multitude of degrees of sinning against the statute is impracticable for the reason pointed out by Sir Francis Bell: The fixing of a minimum penalty would have the effect of many cases, in which there was an element of doubt, being thrown out in order that the minimum penalty wmuld not have to be inflicted. The existence of a strong public opinion upon this subject of the penalty attaching to the driving of cars by intoxicated persons has already proved no inconsiderable deterrent to those who otherwise would ■be inclined to ignore their responsibilities to the rest of the community in this respect. The law, as it at present stands, gives our magistrates ample power to make" the punishment lit the crime, and they can be depended upon to continue to exercise that power as they have done in the past—firmly, but all the more wisely because they are not impeded by a statute which demands that all offenders must suffer a common penalty for widely different degrees of negligence.