JOHN AMERY'S EXPLOITS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21326, 29 October 1932, Page 2 (Supplement)

JOHN AMERY'S EXPLOITS

MOTORING CONVICTIONS ESCAPADE COSTS £55 NO LICENCE FOR FIVE YEARS Mr. John Amery, the twenty-year-old son of Mr. L. S. Amery, M.P., who has been so much in the public eye lately, was disqualified at Westminster Police Court last month from holding a motoring licence for five years. He was also ordered to pay £SO in fines and costs amounting to £5 5s for motoring offences. Prosecuting counsel stated that there were, he believed, 70 convictions against John Amery for motor-car offences, and this showed that lie was defiant of motorcar laws. " I think now," said Mr. Boyd, the magistrate, giving his decision, "that the sooner Mr. Amery's career as a motorist is checked, the better for everybody." The allegations in the summonses were dangerous driving, failing to stop, failing to produce a certificate of insurance and failing to produce a driving licence. The case was first called a week previously, when defendant did not appear and it was then adojurned. Details of Offences Defendant was not present in court when the cases were dealt with, being in France, and defending counsel asked whether the magistrate would take a plea of guilty in his absence and deal with the case. Prosecuting counsel said that the alleged offences occurred on August 6 at Chelsea, when a police constable saw Amery crossing the King's Road in a motor-car. The constable noticed that the road fund licence was out of date and he stepped into the centre of the road and extended his arm for him to stop. " Amery drove straight at him," added coifnsel, " suddenly accelerated and swerved over to the off side so that the wheels mounted the pavement and the constable had to jump aside in order not to be knocked down." Amery was seen on August 9 by a police sergeant, and ho then said, " I may call evidence to show that I was 20 miles away from Chelsea at that time." " Disgraceful Behaviour." The magistrate raised the question of previous convictions. Counsel: There are an enormous number. On August 20, 1931, he was fined £l2 at Kingston and his licence was endorsed, and on another occasion at Reigate he was fined £5. Counsel for the defence remarked, " There is very little 1 want to say, because there is very little to bo said. What defendant actually did was to behave in a disgraceful manner to this policeman. Boys of 20 very often do very foolish things. His action was done for the purpose of being rude and offensive to the policeman when he was trying to stop him. " It was the wrong thing to do, but I do not think anyone was put in real danger. I have nothing to add except to express his very great regret for having behaved in this very reprehensible manner." Counsel asked for three days in which to pay the fines, and this was granted.