MOTORING OFFENCE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18256, 27 November 1933, Page 5

MOTORING OFFENCE

INADEQUATE PENALTY DEFIANCE OF COURT ORDER (Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. Strong efforts have been made by several members of the House to induce the Government to legislate making a more severe penalty for the offence ol appropriating motor-ears. Another feature of motoring offences for which the penalty is inadequate is being represented to the Minister of Justice by Mr. A. E. Anseli, member for Chalmers. He endeavored daring a discussion on the estimates to bring the matter before the House, but references to policy are barred on these occasions. The punishment for continuing to drive when a license has been cancelled by the court for a period appears to be so light that it cannot act as a deterrent. This was as far as Mr. Anseli could explain in the House, hut in an interview with your correspondent he amplified the matter.

“The Chief Justice in a recent motoring case,” said Mr. Anseli, "laid down the dictum that punishment must be sufficiently severe to act as a deterrent. But if a motorist who, through drunken ness or negligence, is deprived bv the court of his driving license for a period proceeds to defy the court order, the utmost penalty which can be imposed is a fine of £lO. There has been a case of a man deprived for three years of his driving license, but being caught soon afterwards driving a car. The only penal provision which can cover the position is in the main Act under the gen eral penalty clause with its maximum of £lO fine. But defiance of a court, order which is intended to keep a dangerous driver off the roads should he treated as a very serious offence, and 1 am.- asking the Minister of Justice to legislate for a maximum fine of £IOO or three months’ imprisonment in such cases.”