“RECKLESS AND CALLOUS”

Northern Advocate, 3 December 1936, Page 5

“RECKLESS AND CALLOUS”

WRESTLING MANAGER GAOLED

SEQUEL to motor accident [Per Press Association. ~ ■ Copyright.! WELLINGTON, This Day. Commenting that the prisoner’s conduct showed not only recklessness, but callousness, the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, yesterday sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment Walter Edward Miller, a wrestling manager and former champion wrestler, who pleaded guilty in the Lower Court to recklessly driving a motor car at Porirua on November 6, and injuring James Leacock, a cyclist. His Honour cancelled Miller’s driving license for two years. j Mr Willis ,for Miller, said he was an i American citizen, who had been in j New Zealand for some months. Had j > he not found himself' in trouble he j would have returned to America, j Miller was in a country strange to him | and appreciated the seriousness of his j offence. He had not been in trouble! before. j

Two Facts In His Favour.

The widespread publicity given to the case would reach America, or a section of the community in which he moved, with uhfortunate consequences. Two facts stood in the prisoner’s favour. There was no suggestion of intoxication. and it had been proved the speed of the car was not excessive. Counsel submitted that the Court would not be justified in imposing a term of imprisonment, but a fine. That would be punishment and a deterrent to others. There was a strong northerly wind, and it was quite possible that the cyclists had their heads down and were swaying from side to side.

The Judge: There is a point on which you have not addressed me. I? not this a case of hit and run?

Mr Willis replied that reference had been made to that aspect, but Miller had not been charged with it. He was charged with reckless driving under section 27 of the Act.

“Case For Imprisonment.”

“I do not suggest that in every case under section 27 of the Motor Vehicles Act imprisonment should be imposed,” said the judge, addressing prisoner.

“Thei’e are cases of negligence, for example, where, although personal injury to or even the death of a third party has resulted, there are mitigating circumstances, or the circumstances may be such that the result may be regarded as misfortune, without involving serious culpability.

“In such cases, where a person is found guilty, a fine, small or large or some other method of dealing with the matter, short of imprisonment, may well meet the case, but there are cases where it is necessary, not as a matte? of punishment to the particular offender, but as a deterrent to others, to impose a term of imprisonment, and I regret to say this, to my mind, is one of them.”

When passing sentence, the Chief Justice said, addressing the prisoner: “According to a witness, the man Leacock was dragged some 10 or 12 yards along the road, and the next thing you did was to drive right off, accelerating your speed. These facts show not merely recklessness, but callousness. That cannot be too strongly condemned.

Gravity of Offence,

“No doubt it may be said that failure to stop to render assistance, and also to repoi’t ah accident are separate offences; but I think, nevertheless, that failure in these respects is a factor that must certainly be taken into consideration in estimating, |or the purpose of assessing the punishment, Ihe gravity of an offender’s conduct on the main charge. In my opinion, a hit and run motorist deserves little consideration. Fortunately, the injury to the victim is not likely to have permanent ill effects, and I shall take that into consideration in assessing the degree of punishment.

“The sentence of the Court is that you shall be imprisoned for six weeks, with the recommendation that you shall be treated as a prisoner of the first division,” concluded His Honour. “In addition, your existing driving license must be suspended for the remainder of its term, and, in addition, it is declared that you shall be disqualified from obtaining another license for two years after the expiration of the term of the current license. I think the punishment imposed is sufficient to meet the case and to afford the deterrent lesson to other motorists which is required.”