BOROUGH SPEED LIMIT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 299, 17 December 1937, Page 4

BOROUGH SPEED LIMIT

MAGISTRATE UPHELD APPEAL ON POINT OF LAW POWER TO USE DISCRETION [ Per Tress Association. 1 AUCKLAND, Dec. 16. An unsuccessful appeal against the decision of Mr. G. N. Morris, S.M., of Whangarei, in dismissing a prosecution against a taxi driver for breach of the traffic regulations, was brought before Mr. Justice Callan in the Supreme Court. The taxi driver, Stanley Ruddell (Mr. Trimmer) had been charged with exceeding the speed limit of 30 miles an hour within the borough of Whangarei. The appeal was made by the Whangarei Borough Council through its traffic inspector, James Henry Ashton (Dr. McElroy). The facts were admitted an.l the appeal was solely upon a point of law. The magistrate gave as his reasons for dismissing the case that there had been no danger to the public, that the defendant was a good that the speed was not excess of the limit and that the breach was occasioned by the inspector's own conduct. Dr. McElroy submitted that these considerations were irrelevant. Ruddell had admittedly travelled for a short distance at 35 miles an hour. His Honour: If the needle had flickered above 30 for a couple of seconds is the magistrate bound to convict? Dr. McElroy: I submit that he is. His Honour said it seemed a dreadful thing if the magistrate had not the power in a proper case to give effect to the maxim that the law does not concern itself with trifles. Dr. McElroy said the Act made the liability absolute, if a breach, however trifling, was admitted. His Honour said he would not require to hear Mr. Trimmer. The facts, as stated by the magistrate, showed that the only cause that Jed the defendant, for a very short space of time, to exceed the 30-mile-an-hour limit was a reasonable endeavour to get away from the glaring lights of the vehicle behind him. He had no means of knowing that the vehicle was the inspector’s. He occasioned no danger and he was a good driver, which was the reason for not subjecting him to a conviction for a highlytechnical breach. The real question was whether there was anything whatever in this particular Statute to say that a magistrate should not exercise his discretion and dismiss, as too trifling, cases where there had been a purely technical breach, added His Honour. Magistrates very frequently exercised such discretion, and he was certainly not going to declare they had no power to do it. “The decision of the magistrate was just, proper and sensible, and should have been accepted by the local body. The appeal will be dismissed with costs, £5 55,” His Honour concluded.