TRAFFIC OFFENCES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21742, 6 March 1934, Page 12

TRAFFIC OFFENCES

r MOTORISTS' OBLIGATIONS u RULING BY MAGISTRATE INFORMATION TO INSPECTORS A fine of £5 and 10s costs was imposed by Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M., in a reserved decision given in the Otahuhu Police Court yesterday concerning a charge against Mary Henderson, of Auckland, of refusing to supply information to a traffic inspector. The proceedings were heard at tho previous Court sitting on an information laid by Mr. P. Jones, traffic inspector to the Manukau County Council. Mr. Jones said tho charge was a sequel to a motor-car, ascertained to be defendant's, colliding with a bridge on the Panmure-Howick highway about 10 p.m. on February 2. The bridge had been extensively damaged and defendant had refused to furnish information as to the identity of the driver on that occasion. In giving judgment yesterday, Mr. Levien said the interpretation of tho section had been called in question. Tho facts given by the inspector showed that extensive damage had been done to the bridge by a motor-car travelling at an excessive speed. Had tho car not been traced, said Mr. Levien, he would have come to the conclusion, having seen the damaged bridge, that nothing short of a very heavy vehicle had struck it. The heavy iron standards had been completely carried away. There was, in the magistrate's opinion, sufficient evidence to indicate that some offence had been committed. Mr. Jones, traffic inspector, who was fully qualified to make the inquiries, had interviewed Miss Henderson and told her: "I suspect the driver of the car has been guilty of reckless driving." It had been contended by the defence that by saying he "suspected" certain offences the inspector was not "alleging" any offence had been committed, and there was no need for defendant to supply tho information sought for. "A Legal Quibble" "That seems to me to be something like a legal quibble," said Mr. Levien. "The whole purport of the section referred to was that the owner of p vehicle Bhould say who was the driver of it on any particular occasion named by the inspector. The defendant had not done hep duty in that respoct.

"All I have to consider is whether the inspector bad to go to tho owner of a car and say: 'I allege tho person driving your car last night committed an offence,' " said the magistrate. That was tho principle brought forward by the defence, which contended that an inspector could not use words that were synonymous. There had been no authority quoted in support of the dofence's contention. To use the word "allege" in place of "suspect" was merely to use a stronger word. It appeared to be a question of distinguishing between synonymous expressions, and in the present case the \vo\d bad no merit in itself.

Even before the inspector went to see defendant she had made up her mind not to give any information whatever as to the driver of the car. No evidence had been produced to thp Court that she had reported the accident to the police. That someone had been injured was shqwn by the blood being found in the car. Authority For Inquiries

Referring to the questioned authority of the inspector to make inquiries, the magistrate said there were very drastic privileges accorded under the legislation to traffic officers. They could stop any driver of a vehicle and demand information, and could even arrest a person without a warrant. This tended to shoAv the view the Legislature took in the matter when framing the legislation. The section must be interpreted to carry out its obvious intention, said Mr. Leyien, and whenever the inspector made known to the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident his view that an offence had occurred the owner must disclose the name of the driver at once. '^ "There can be no side-stepping of that issue, and it is futile to say that suspecting is not as vital as alleging," said the magistrate. Ho said defendant would be convicted. On the question of penalty it had been stated strongly in Court that defendant had acted on counsel's advice, who took the full responsibility for rofusing the information. "She may not havo been a free agent in the matter," said Mr. Levien, in asking Sir. Jones whether the information had been supplied. The inspector said he had received no further information.

"I had thought of adjourning the case to give defendant an opportunity to meet tho inspector and furnish the information, but will not do so," said Mr. Levion.