RECKLESS DRIVING

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 190, 13 August 1931, Page 5

RECKLESS DRIVING

NORMAN TINNEY SENTENCED TWELVE MONTHS’ GAOL DEATH OF FARM WORKER Pleading guilty to recklessly driving a motor car on May 16 last and thereby causing the death of a youth, Stuart Humphrey, and of negligently driving a motor car, thereby causing death, Norman Tinney appeared for sentence before Mr Justice Blair at the Supreme Court at Wanganui yesterday. Tinney was sentenced to 12 months' hard labour and was disqualified from obtaining a driver’s license for ten years. Mr Louis Cohen, who appeared on behalf of Tinney, questioned whether the lamp, on Humphrey’s bicycle had been alight at the time of the accident. He also pleaded that Tinney’s weakness for drink was due to the effect of gas during the war. He called Alfred Williams to give evidence in the witness box.

Williams said that he was the manager of the Patea Freezing Works and that he knew the accused. Tinney had been working at the Patea Freezing Works for a good many years. Witness had some knowledge of tho disposition of accused and he considered that he was a very good worker and that he carried his duties out very faithfully. The only thing that he could say against Tinney was tnat he was weak as regards drink. He was an habitual drinker and had occasional lapses. Tinney was also easily led. Addressing his Honour, Mr Cohen said that Tinney came of a very good family. He was evidently a reliable workman at the freezing works. As a slaughterman he would come into contact with all kinds of men. As stated by Mr Williams, Tinney was easily led and had occasional drinking bouts. Unfortunately there were many such men. But that did not mean that Tinney was a criminal. Tinney had been convicted in Wanganui two years ago. He had come to the Wanganui races with a party and after the races he had been parted from those friends. He had gone to the police station to ask permission of the police as to whether he could search the hotels for his friends as it was after six o’clock. Tinney was said by the police to have; been driving a motor car when he was under the influence of liquor and was arrested. As a result of that he had had his license taken away for two years. Since that occasion his wife had been driving the car. Unfortunately on the night of the accident Tinney had driven the car from Kakaramea. He had been with some friends from the freezing works and they had had a party, as a result of which they had all become drunk. Mr Cohen said that it was a great pity that some person had not stepped in and sent the party home in a taxi. After the accident Tinney had experienced an internal feeling of remorse and this, with the weight of evidence against him, had been the cause of his pleading guilty. He had been let out of gaol on bail and during that time his conduct had been beyond doubt. Tinney had asked Mr Cohen to emphasise to his Honour the remorse that he, Tinney, had felt. No Light on Bicycle “I question whether there was a burning light at the time of the accident,” continued Mr Cohen. The Court had only the deposition of two boys who had seen a bicycle pass them on the night of the accident. One of the boys had deposed that he had seen the light on the bicycle but the other had said that he had not noticed a light. Mr Prouse, who had been sitting in the front seat with Tinney had also deposed that he had not seen a light. If there had been a light he had claimed that he would have seen it. His Honour: He might have seen two. Mr Cohen said that might have been so if the light had been there. The lamp on the bicycle had been a kerosene lamp. The uncombustive part of the wick of the lamp had been l-Bth of an inch, and he and other experts had made experiments to ascertain whether the wick would burn with that amount of it alight and if so, whether it would smoke. The oil in the lamp had been analysed to ascertain whether it was kerosene or not. That liquid—in the lamp had been of a pinkish colour and the analysis had proved that it was not pure kerosene. It was unfortunate that the quantity available for the analyst had been most limited. Experiments had shown that the finer the quality of an oil the more perfect the combustion. With kerosene the combustion was least perfect and therefore it would produce smoke. Mr Cohen contended that if the lamp had been alight, the smoke from the light would have been intolerable to the rider and would have left traces on the facets of the lamp itself. That was what he had to submit as to the cause for doubt that, the lamp had been alight. His Honour asked how many feet the ear had travelled after the impact. Mr Cohen replied that the unfortunate rider of the bicycle had been precipitated upon the windscreen of the ear and it was not unusual that the driver would have been unnerved at such an’ occurrence and would have lost control of his machine and travelled on several yards. His Honour said that he had had a similar experience but it had not been unnerving. A man in a normal condition would 4 * still stop.” Mr Cohen: But admittedly the man was not a normal driver. Not only his mental but physical control was affected. Mr Cohen then submitted to his Honour that the light was not burning. It was a probability, though he would not say that it was a possibility. After the accident the party in the car had known that the rider of the bicycle was dead, for they had placed him on the side of the road. His Honour said that the Court was concerned with the anterior occurrences of the accident. Mr Cohen then explained that Tinney had not been attempting to blame his wife for the accident. His Honour said that did not matter very much. Mr Cohen referred to the energetic manhood of Tinney, who had had an excellent war record. He had been one of 16 out of 600 who had survived the battle of the Somme. He had been gassed and the effect of that gas may have had some moral effect on him. But after the death of the young man. Mr Cohen said, it could be assumed that Tinney would consider it his duty in life from now on to exercise his will power to control his impulses for his \wn welfare and safety and also that yothers. Mr Cohen said that he had ‘ Jnd Tinney’s assurance that he would

never touch liquor again as long as he lived. The Sentence "These cases are very painful to me because they are always cases of men with respectable records,” said Mr Justice Blair when delivering his sentence. "They are not men of the ordinary criminal class,” he continued. "They are not criminals at all. They are men who are neglectful of their duty to care for the safety of others. The law provides that people who fail in that duty are punished. "Now the accused has pleaded guilty un two charges, one of reckless driving. causing death, and the other of negligent driving and causing death. He was also indicted for manslaughter. As was decided by the Court of Appeal in Storey’s case there is really no distinction between one case or the other. Any person in charge of a motor vehicle, I consider, is bound to take care for the safety of others and failure in that respect constitutes either a crime of manslaughter or an offence under the Motor Regulations Act. Now, so far as the accused himself is concerned, his case differs from certain other cases in that not only was he not a licensed driver, but he was subject to statutary disqualification. His right to drive had been taken away from him in February, 1930. The position is that he was driving when he was incapable of having full control of his judgment and that he was driving a motor car while he was a disqualified person. "I have pointed out that our statuary law is defective in that it provides only for a fine in cases of persons who are disqualified from driving. There is a marked difference between a person driving without a license and driving when disqualified. It seems to me that some greater penalty should be provided. This man had already had a warning once before when he drove his car under the influence of liquor. He drove this car when he was under the influence of liquor. He was advised that it would be useless for him to attempt to deny it. "I am in this position. Here is a man who is driving a car and he causes the death of another lawful user of the road. Whether that man was using it with or without a light appears to be not of great material. The fact remains that he was killed as the result of the deliberate negligence by the accused and the statuary duties im-

posed upon him. I have only in one case imposed a term of imprisonment for offences of this nature and that was a case similar to this: in that particular case the accused had more liquor than was good for him.

"I look upon these cases of accidents which are due to drinking and driving motor cars as very very grave indeed, and it seems to me that there is only one course to take —to impose a term of imprisonment so that these people whe do these things will, so far as the law a lows, bt adequately punished. It is nut tbe purpose of the law to be vicious. I Lave no d?sire to be vindic + ve—the iaw is never vindictive. It is very, veiy painful to a judge to have to impose a sentence, but in this particular case, although the man is a man of good family with a weakness for liquor and a fine record it seems to me that I would be failing in my duty if I did < therwise than to impose a sentence. I have some doubt as to whether the sentence seems adequate- " The sentence of the Court is that Tinney be imprisoned with hard laboui for 12 calendar months. I also give the declaration under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act that he is to be disqualified from obtaining a license for 10 years.

"That is the sentence on the first of the charges. As to the second, seeing that the law does not help me to ensure that he will not drive again for a lengthy period, all I can do is to take other means to ensure that will happen. As far as the negligent driving is concerned he will be convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon at any time during the time of his disqualification. Now that means that if he does drive a car in breach of the disqualification which I have imposed upon him he can be punished un-iei that particular charge. It is hanging over his head in that way. If he Behave himself ho will never hear anything more about it.”