Drunken Driving ‘Expert Witness’ Definition Sought

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31097, 28 June 1966, Page 3

Drunken Driving ‘Expert Witness’ Definition Sought

(New Zealand Press Association > WELLINGTON, June 27. The question of whether traffic officers are entitled to be treated by the courts as expert witnesses and be allowed to express opinions on intoxicated driving was argued in the Court of Appeal today.

Jack Austin Blackie, aged i 45, a real-estate agent, is ap-i pealing against his conviction | in the Magistrate’s Court on | a charge of driving while under the influence of drink. The appeal aTso raised the following questions of law: (a) Whether the opinion In evidence of experienced traffic officers, as a class, is admissible in prosecutions under section 58, of the Transport Act, 1962, without the necessity, of proof in individual cases that the par-1 ticular traffic officer has ex-1 pert knowledge of the subject' to which his opinion relates.; (b) Whether the question of ability to have proper con-1 trol of a motor-vehicle is a( subject upon which compet-i

lency to form an opinion can j only be acquired by a course jof special study or expedience. Mr B. E. Brill is appear-; ing for Blackie and Mr J. Larsen for the Crown. The Court comprises Mr Justice North, Mr Justice Turner and Mr Justice McCarthy. On November 22 last year, the Supreme Court dismissed Blackie’s appeal against his conviction. Leave to appeal to the; (Court of Appeal was refused! by the Supreme Court. How-! [ever, an appeal against that: irefusal was allowed by the; (Court of Appeal on the: (grounds that the question, i was one of public importance. I