THEFT OF MOTOR CARS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 157, 4 June 1934, Page 6

THEFT OF MOTOR CARS.

The law as at present framed has a polite way of saying that a motor vehicle unlawfully appropriated by a person to his use is not stolen but converted. It follows, therefore, that if such an individual is apprehended and the charge proved against him, he is guilty of conversion and not theft. The consequence may be maximum imprisonment, which is rarely imposed, of three months. To the unfortunate motorist whose car—to him—has been stolen, and perhaps driven, over a cliff, or abandoned in a ditch, or else set on fire, there is no difference between conversion and actual theft so far as the crime itself is concerned, and through his Motor Union he is again pressing upon the authorities the imperative necessity of so making the punishment fit the crime that the theft of cars will be prevented as far as the law can do so. It is on record that one motor car in this country is stolen every day. That is a serious indictment against the authorities who have the responsibility of making laws, for it means that there is no deterrent; the individual with a perverted mind scorns the punishment he may receive. But this is not all. The police are the guardians of public property. Zealous constables, in trying to arrest men who have converted cars to their own use, have been either grievously injured or placed in a position of extreme peril. The case of Constable Stewart in Auckland, it is no exaggeration, aroused the people of this country to the menace to life and limb of men who bravely do their duty. His injuries after eight months of suffering are still not healed, and a vigorous life has been curtailed in its future activities. Some weeks ago a constable at Mokau was struck in the face with a beer bottle—a most sinister weapon —when intercepting car thieves at the Mokau bridge. He was more fortunate than Constable Stewart, and more recently another Auckland constable narrowly escaped grievous injury in the similar performance of his duties. Apart from the legal aspect there is the personal loss. It is rarely that a stolen vehicle is abandoned in the good order in which it was when taken. Often it is wilfully damaged, destroyed, or set on fire to eradicate clues to its identity. The owner, unless he is specially indemnified, must bear the loss from damage, and it is not to be wondered at that Motor Unions are becoming more and more anxious about a situation that calls for drastic remedy. It is only to be found in an amendment to the law that will make the crime not one of conversion but of theft, with adequate penalties for the wrongdpers when convicted. The Justice Department’s view is that accused persons would then seek trial in the Supreme Court and juries might be loth to convict. That may be true to some extent, but the knowledge that a salutary penalty existed for the theft of a motor car would in the greater number of cases prevent wrongdoing of this nature. Only the hardened criminal or a desperate individual would defy the law.