CONSTABLE CHARGED

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 63, Issue 4491, 17 October 1941, Page 4

CONSTABLE CHARGED

ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE ACCIDENT NEAR OTOROHANGA. A charge of negligently driving a car and causing injury to three people was preferred against a police constable, Edward McDonnell, aged 43 years, of Otorohanga, when he appeared before the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, in the Supreme Court at Hamilton on Wednesday. The case was the sequel to an accident three miles north of Otorohanga on the main highway on sth August, when McDonnell was involved in a collision in which Keith Gordon Parkes, Mrs Violet Rosina. Parkss, and Joyce Evelyn Parkes were injured. The Crown case was conducted by Mr J. R. Fitz Gerald, and accused, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Messrs J. F. Strang and J. F. Trapski (Otorohanga). CASE FOR PROSECUTION.

Mr Fitz Gerald said the accident occurred on the evening of sth August when Keith Gordon Parkes was driving his car toward Te Awamutu. With him he had his wife and five-year-old daughter, and when he was near the scene of the accident he saw a car coming toward him on its correct side of the road. However, the car changed its direction toward its incorrect side, and carried on in that way.

Parkes was dazed for a while, and when he recovered he heard the selfstarter of the other car and recognised the driver as Constable McDonnell. Parkes told him to leave the car where it was, and then another motorist came on the scene and gave assistance. When accused tried to help, Parkes told him to go away, and the constable then disappeared from the scene of the accident. Nothing was seen of him for another three hours. At about 11 p.m. Mr Morley saw accused walking in a dazed condition in the street in Otorohanga. His face was covered XVith blood, and his hand was bound up. There was no sign of liquor on him at that time, but a number of bothies of beer were found in his car.

In reply to His Honour. Mr FitzGerald said that when McDonnell was medically examined he was found to be in a dazed condition, but the doctor could not say whether it was due to concussion or liquor. There was no suggestion in the depositions, said Mr Strang, that accused had consumed any liquor that day or that he was in any way intoxicated.

A statement made by accused was read by Mr Fitz Gerald. In it McDonnell said he had little recollection of anything- that happened that day. He served several summonses, and then went to see his son,, who was in camp at Hopu Hopu. On his way back through Hamilton he visited a chemist to get something to steady his nerves. He could not remember anything more until he saw two bright lights on the road and something that looked as big as a house. Evidence on those lines was giver, for the Crown. CASE FOR DEFENCE. It was admitted that the accident occurred on accused’s wrong side of the road, said Mr Strang, and thus there was at least a prinia facie case of negligence on his part. However, there were surrounding circumstances to be considered (which would explain his conduct. Accused could remember very little about the whole matter, and it was a case which clamoured for an explanation of the true cause of McDonnell’s apparently suicidal behaviour, which had placed himself and others in great danger. An inquiry was needed into the state of McE on nell’s health. He had been overworked, he was worried about his son, and he was not in good health.

It was a case of whether his loss of memory was caused by the accident or by his state of health. Evidence would show that he was in a state c f nervous debility, and that he lost l.is power of properlv controlling his car. Any premonitory symptoms he might have had were not such as to cause him to think that he would lose his power of controlling the car he was driving. THE SUMMING UP. His Honour received the evidence and submissions at some length. He added that human life was too valuable to be jeopardised by careless motorists, and if a motorist were subject to heart attack he should give up driving. It had been suggested that accused was in a state oi somnolence as a result of a sedative taken in Hamilton, but it was admitted that he had later had some drink at Kihikihi. Had the latter fact any bearing on McDonnell’s condition? his Honour asked. A jury must be careful to see that no conviction was recorded unless there were convincing proof of negligence. If the jury were agreed that McDonnell had suddenly become il l while driving and lost consciousness, it should not convict him. VERDICT OF GUILTY. The jury returned a verdict of “guilty” with a strong recommendation to mercy on the ground of illhealth, due to worry and stress of work. On Mr Strang’s undertaking to pay costs of prosecution, His Honor sentenced accused to three days’, imprisonment and cancelled his drivers’ license for a period of three years. His Honour said he felt that accused was temporarily unfit to drive a car on account of the state of his health. While he (His Honour) deprecated, any interference with judicial decisions, he thought that if accused, later on, applied for the cancellation of the order prohibiting him from holding a driver’s license, it might be favourably considered, provided that his health improved.