TECHNICALLY PROVED

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 58, 4 December 1946, Page 5

TECHNICALLY PROVED

CASE OF SPEEDING UNUSUAL COURT SEQUEL An unusual case in which a prosecution for speeding was technically proved, hut did not justify a conviction was heard in the Whakatane Magistrate’s Court last Tuesday when Lawrence S. Anderson (Mr Otley) was charged with driving a car on the Whakatane-Tauranga main highway, at a speed in excess of the regulation 40 m.p.h. The prosecution was brought by the County Traffic Inspector, Mr A. Carling (Mr Hamerton). Mr E. L. Walton, S.M., was on the Bench. A plea of not guilty was entered.

Inspector Carling stated that in the afternoon of October Ist, he was travelling along the WhakataneTauranga main highway a short distance past Poroporo, when a car driven by defendant passed him. Witness was at that time himself travelling at 40 m.p.h., and he decided to follow defendant and check his speed. This he did on a straight stretch of road, and ‘clocked’ him at 48 m.p.h. After traversing several bends another car came in sight ahead. Defendant and witness both passed this car, and after crossing a bridge, he again checked defendant’s speed, this time at 52 m.p.h. He then stopped defendant who claimed that his maximum speed had not exceeded 43 m.p.h., this rate being when he passed the other car. A rough check on his speedometer was carried out, and it was found to register 8 m.p.h. behind the actual speed of the vehicle. To Mr Otley, witness added that after traversing the bends, he was some 150 yards behind defendant, but when the third car on the road was passed, he had closed the gap. Mr Otley: It would be only natural for defendant to speed up to pass the car in front wouldn’t it? Witness: Yes, but even then his speed was not as great as when he had a free road.

Inspector Carling added that just before coming to the Dredge Cut bridge, the three cars were together one behind the other. He was quite certain he had not checked defendant’s speed whilst catching him up. Mr Otley: Do you know who was in the other car?

Witness: Yes, but I’d rather not •say.

The Magistrate: Why. hammer •away at it Mr Otley when your •client knows that I was driving the •other car?

In evidence, defendant stated that he had left Whakatane township that afternoon, and whilst parked in King Street, had , seen Inspector •Carling pass. He had followed in his •own car, and at the Rotorua .turn--1 off, the Inspector was still ahead. Some distance before the crossing, he overhauled Him. According to his own speedometer, the Inspector’s car was travelling at 35 m.p.h. Just prior to reaching the crossing he had passed, at 40 m.p.h. Almost ‘bumper to bumper’, they had continued on to the metalled section of the road, where the Inspector had dropped back. He continued at 40 m.p.h. until just before the first bridge. As the two cars crossed, he noticed the Inspector’s car appear in the 'distance behind. He decided to pass the car ahead, and as he did so, noticed that the Inspector had caught him up. A short distance past, he was stopped.

He failed to see how his speed could have been checked at 48 m.p.h. unless it was when the Inspector was catching up to him. He was fully aware of who was behind him. He had been over the road since the incident, and estimated that his first sight of the other car ahead was .4 of a mile. It was travelling at 38 m.p.h., and it had taken him 4 miles to overtake it. He had also had his speedometer checked twice sinceffhe date in question, and it had been passed on both occasions as being approximately correct. The Magistrate commented that defendant seemed sincere in his belief that he had not infringed, but at the same time, he had no doubt that Inspector Carling had checked him at more thdn the speed limit. It could probably be described as a case which had been technically proved. It was an instance where the speed limit had been exceeded unconsciously, and he would dismiss the charge.