POWERS OF ARREST

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVIII, Issue 230, 27 August 1938, Page 6

POWERS OF ARREST

FOR TRAFFIC INSPECTORS. OPINIONS DIFFER.' Per Press Association. HAWERA, Aug. 26. The annual conference of the North Island Motor Union opened at Hawera to-day, the delegates being accorded a welcome by the Mayor (Mr J. E. Campbell). Mr A. R. Grayson (Auckland) presided in the absence of Dp. E. E. Poritt, who was indisposed. There are delegates from every association in the North Island and representatives of the South Island Motor Union, the Highways Board, and subsidiary interests. “In order to preserve safety on the road the intense effort to apprehend drivers under the influence of liquor is being continued. Owing to the considerable variation in the penalties imposed for the offence, and being mindful of the position whieh arises when Justices of the Peace require to deal with such a case affecting a local resident probably well known to them, the union recommended to the Minister of Justice that cases of this nature be dealt with only by Stipendiary Magistrates. The Minister has advised that as far as practicable such a pplicy is being followed, but it is not possible in all cases, more particularly r, remote localities, to give effect to our desires.” This statement was contained in the report submitted to-day to the conference. It added: “In an amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act which is already drafted power is sought for traffic officers to be vested with the right to arrest drunken drivers of motor vehicles. A decision on this matter will require attention. There is widespread objection on the ground that the present regulations give sufficient power to deal with such offenders, and unless they possess special qualifications officers may not exercise their power wisely. In consequence inconvenience and humiliation may be suffered by persons -wrongfully apprehended. On the other hand, the view is widely held that without the right to effect arrest an inspector may be powerless to prevent a drunken driver from operating a vehicle which may result- in serious personal injury or property damage. The problem has already been given much careful thought and it is hoped that whatever the decision arrived at, it will be in the best interests of users of the road.”

Objection to the proposed legislation to give traffic inspectors the power to arrest drunken motorists was expressed. The opinion was divided, but the majority held that such legislation would he an encroachment on the liberty of the motoring public, while the others contended that motorists had nothing to fear. Mr R. W. Roydhouse (Wairarapa), moving that tho proposel to give power of arrest to traffic inspectors be rejected, said the regulations provided the inspectors had power to stop any driver incapable of driving, and also to remove the vehicle from the road.

Power of arrest, therefore, was not necessary. Mr W. 0. Williams (South Taranaki) suggested that the police were quite capable of handling the situation. Mr E. Palliser (Wellington) said the inspectors had no power to remove an offender from his car, and in the case of an intoxicated driver the inspector would have to go away and call a policeman, and in the meantime the man could drive off and posibly kill someone. A The saving of lives was worth more to motorists than a few wrongful arrests. Mr F. A. Moore (New Plymouth) and Mr E. A. Batt (Wellington) considered that inspectors should have the necessary authority in order to force drunken drivers - off the road.

Inspectors did not have the necessary training, said Mr G. W. Hutchinson (Auckland). He thought the police could best handle the situation. This mew was supported by Mr A. E. llenoud (Hawke’s Bay). The union did not want to protect drunken motorists, but to protect members from the indignity to which they might be subjected, said Mr A. S. Burgess (Wanganui). Dr. S. A—Gibbs (5.1.M.U.) said his union had come to the decision that, in the interests of the motorists themselves, power of arrest should be given to inspectors, especially in the country districts. Special training, however, was necessary.

On being put to the vote, there was a substantial majority against the proposal.