Validity Challenge On Informations

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31007, 12 March 1966, Page 22

Validity Challenge On Informations

The validity was challenged m the Magistrate’s Court yesterday of two informations which charged Desmond Francis Wyatt, aged 41, a truck driver, with careless use of a motor vehicle in Blenheim road on December 21 causing bodily injury to Shirley Rhodes and with driving in a dangerous manner in Moorhouse avenue on the same date. The information laid against Wyatt read that on December 21 he “drove a motor vehicle, namely a motor truck, on a road, namely Moorhouse avenue, in a manner winch having regard to all the circumstances of the case might have been dangerous to the public,” and, “did cause bodily injury to a person, namely Shirley Rhodes, by carelessly using a motor vehicle, namely a motor truck on a road, nameh’ Blenheim road.” Mr E. A. Lee, S.M., was on the Bench. Mr A. D. Holland, for Wyatt, said both informations were defective and should either be amended or dismissed. The information did not comply with Section 17 of the Summary Proceedings Act which said that. “Every information shall contain such particulars as will fairly inform the defendant of the substance of the offence with which he is charged.” For many years it had been the practice of the prosecutors to state ontv the offence on the information. “That would be right if that was what the section of the Summarv Proceedings Act said—hut it doesn’t" Mr Holland said. The categories in which a person m control of a motor vehicle could be careless or drive tn a dangerous manner were oracticatlv limitless and should be stated tt could be argued that anv person who moved a car wa c i d”’'’ewnic'v becai’cc of i th' 1 *>oss;bil:tv of a danger I What was not clear in the•

information was the carelessness or danger alleged. “The prosecution must specify in what respects the driver had been careless or dangerous,” he said. A corollary of his argument lay in the preparation of informations on charges of theft. The courts would not accept an information that "in such and such a house on such and such a date something had been stolen.” Mr Holland said he accepted that the present practice had gone on for many, many years and was the usual way. Development Of Practice The practice had developed when traffic offences were re garded as minor matters to be dealt with by a fine of a small amount. That was not the case now as his client faced on conviction the possibility of three months’ imprisonment on each of the charges and the loss of his licence for 12 months. That was a serious matter for his client’s job was driving Carelessness was a wide allegation. In practically every accident there was some factor of carelessness. “All we have here is the road, the date and the offence and I submit that is not the substance.” Mr Holland asked that al case be stated to the Supreme i Court to decide whether or not the informations were valid. Mr Lee said that sometimes he was left wondering what the carelessness alleged was and he had to sort it out. Mr Holland said he accepted that the present practice was 50 years old. The Magistrate said - the present practice had been established for a long time and had not been challenged before, though sometimes information had been sought He considered that before he disturbed the present pro-! cedure a case should be stated to the Supreme Court for determination and he ad-' journed the hearing for that to be done.