APPEAL UPHELD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26589, 11 October 1947, Page 2

APPEAL UPHELD

CHARGE OF SPEEDING INSPECTOR’S DEFECTIVE SPEEDOMETER “It is things like this that lias given the name of British justice the high place it enjoys throughout the world. The Crovvn in this country, and in all British countries, is not out to obtain prosecutions and the conviction of innocent men, but to have justice done. When a doubt arises in the mind of a Crown solicitor or prosecutor as to the guilt of an accused person, then we see happen what has happened here to-day.’

This comment was made by Mr Justice Fleming in the Supreme Court yesterday in allowing the appeal in a case in wWich the accuracy of a speedometer on a traffic inspectors patrol car was called in question. A good deal of evidence was called by the respondents to show that there had been a good deal of inaccuracy found in the speedometer used, and his Honor was referring to this evidence and the attitude of counsel foi the respondents, Mr F. B. Adams, when he made the remarks quoted above. . , . , _ , The case was one in which Samuel Francis Knight appealed against the decision of Mr A. E. Dobbie. S.M.,_ in convicting him of a charge of having driven a motor car on the highway at Alexandra on March 15 last at a speed exceeding 40 miles an hour. The case was heard in the Magistrate's Court in Dunedin on July 23 when appellant was fined £2 and costs (10s). The grounds of the appeal were that such conviction was wrong in law and was against the weight of evidence. Robert Owen Wilkinson . a traffic inspector was named as respondent, and he was represented by Mr F. B. Adams, while Mr F. W. Guest appeared for appellant.

“ Serious Defects ”

Mr Adams said it would be admitted that even before the hearing a defect had developed in the respondent’s speedometer, but this was not thought to be relevant to the present action. Apart from the speedometer reading, the case for the respondent would also rely on the opinion of the inspector, who was an experienced man. The respondent, in evidence, said that he was on duty on the highway between Alexandra and Wanaka on March 15 last, and he was travelling at a steady 40 miles an hour. He was overtaken very rapidly by a car driven by the appellant, which he considered must have been travelling at 55 miles an hour. Witness accelerated and drove behind appellant’s car and checked the speed. He then stopped him. Appellant claimed that he was not going more than 40 miles an hour, and had not exceeded that speed since leaving Dunedin. A little later witness again stopped the appellant because of his speed, but the appellant claimed that he had not exceeded 40 miles an hour and asked another passenger to corroborate his statement. Witness said his speedometer had been tested on November 26 when it was shown to be correct up to 40 miles an hour, but at 50 miles it showed a reading of 52. Witness added that he had had 16 prosecutions for speeding based on the speedometer readings and there had been no question raised about their accuracy.

Expert Evidence

Albert Edwin Wynne, a vehicle inspector, Public Works Department, explained the nature of the tests carried out on the speedometer. Witness claimed that even with the inaccuracies it “ would have been an easy matter for the inspector to have arrived at the true speed.” Evidence of the tests carried out on the speedometer was also given by James Alexander Shaw, vehicle inspector, Transport Department, Alexander Ivan Payne, motor mechanic, Public Works Department, John Johnstone, traffic inspector, and Henry Hart, of the Dominion Physical Laboratory, Wellington. A passenger in the respondent’s car, Ronald John Montgomery, who appeared on subpoena, said he was a passenger in the appellant's car on March 15. The car was stopped by a traffic inspector at Alexandra. Witness noted .the speedometer reading at the time, and it did not go over 40. When passing the inspector's car the needle “ flicked at 43 and then settled back to 40.” That was the highest reading during the whole day. To Mr Guest, witness said it was a mere guess to suggest that the needle went up to 43, as the speedometer was marked in lO.s.

Mr Guest, in asking the court to allow the appeal, said that he wished to thank the Traffic Department for the very fair way in which it had placed its evidence before the court. He greatly appreciated the department’s action in the matter. “ Insecure Foundations ”

Acquiescing in Mr Guest’s request, Mr Adams pointed out the extreme importance to the Transport Department of any prosecution in which doubt was cast on the accuracy used in the checking of speeds. He explained that the department had insisted on presenting its case in order to show the extreme care that was taken to check the instruments. Nothing had happened until some time after the offence to cast doubt on the accuracy of the speedometer. “ It is felt,” he continued. “ that convictions in such cases should not be allowed to rest on foundations that are in any way insecure, and that the court should not be asked to rely on readings of instruments that are even open to reasonable suspicion.’ Counsel said it was only fair to the magistrate who had dealt with the original charge to say that the “ grounds for arriving at this conclusion were not before him, and consisted largely of the results of an examination made after judgment was delivered.”

His Honor said that he had not intended calling upon Mr Guest to make submissions, and he congratulated counsel on their stand in the case. He thought the department concerned was to be commended in going to all the trouble and expense in order to place all the facts before the court. “The court is happy to be able to rectify what might have been a miscarriage of justice,” he added.