TRAFFIC REGULATIONS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 17 December 1937, Page 4

TRAFFIC REGULATIONS

RIGHT TO DISMISS TRIFLING BREACH MAGISTRATE'S DECISION UPHELD I By Telegraph-Press Association 1 AUCKLAND, 16th December An unsuccessful appeal against the decision of Mr G. N. Morris, S.M., of Whangarei, in dismissing a prosecution against a taxi driver for a breach of the traffic regulations was brought before Mr Justice Callan in the Sup reme Court. The taxi driver, Stanley Ruddell (Mr Trimmer), had been charged with exceeding the speed limit of SO miles an hour within the borough of Whangarei. The appeal was made by tire Whangarei Borough Council, through its traffic inspector, James Henry Ashton (Dr. McElroy). The facts were admitted, and the appeal was solely upon a point of law. The magistrate gave as his reasons for dismissing the'ease that there had been i no danger to the public, that defendant | was a good driver, that his speed was not greatly in excess of the limit, and that the breach was occasioned by the inspector’s own conduct. Dr. McElroy submitted that these considerations were irrelevant. Ruddell had admittedly travelled for a short distance at 35 miles an hour. His Honour: If the needle had flickered above 30 for a couple of seconds is the magistrate bound to convict? Dr. Elroy: I submit that he is. His Honour said it seemed a dreadful thing if the magistrate had not the power in a proper case to give effect to the maxim that the law does not concern itself with trifles. Dr. McElroy said the Act made the liability absolute, if a breach, however trifling, was admitted. His Honour said he would not require to hear Mr Trimmer. The facts as stated by the magistrate showed that the only cause that led the defendant for a very short space of time to exceed the 30 miles an hour was a reasonable endeavour to get away from the glaring lights of the vehicle behind him. He had no means of knowing the vehicle was the inspector’s. He occasioned no danger, and he was a good driver, which was reason for not subjecting him to conviction for a highly technical breach. The real question was whether there was anything whatever in this particular statute to say that a magistrate should not exercise his discretion and dismiss as 100 trifling a case where there had been a purely technical breach, added his Honour. Magistrates very frequently exercised such discretion, and he was certainly not going to declare that they had no power to do it. “The decision of the magistrate was just, proper and sensible, and should have been accepted by the local body.” he said. “The appeal will be dismissed with costs £5 55.”