Supreme Court Appeal On Traffic Sentence Fails

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31111, 14 July 1966, Page 11

Supreme Court Appeal On Traffic Sentence Fails

A 17-year-old youth was un-|1 successful in an appeal toil the Supreme Court yesterday 1 against six months’ dis-’l qualification from driving, 1 and a fine of £lO, for testing 1 his car on the road when he ! ’ had no driver's licence. ! Mr Justice Macarthur, after p first saying that the penalty i seemed “extremely severe,” held that the appellant, Phillip Neville Stewart, a builder’s assistant, had shown some irresponsibility, 1 and that the disqualification was justified to deter him' from such. Stewart, who was said top have driven his car 400 yards j down McCormacks Bay road and back after making adjustments to the distributor, had never held a driver’s licence —although the Court was informed he had obtained one between the date of his offence and the calling of his case in the Magistrate's Court. Mr M. G. L. Loughnan, fori Stewart, submitted that it was) not “one of those bits of bad I driving” which usually | brought a motorist before the I Courts—and Stewart had not I received the usual red-1 printed notice with his summons, warning him that his licence could be cancelled. The case was one of excessive use of a magistrate’s discretionary power, said Mr Loughnan. Unlicensed drivers) were usually only disqualified) if there was something un-| toward in their driving—so that the present penalty was out of line with practice. In testing his car on McCormacks Bay road on a) Saturday afternoon, Stewart I was driving on a road which carried little traffic of con-' sequence. His Honour interrupted to say that Mr Loughnan’s submissions were inconsistent with Stewart’s letter (tc the Magistrate’s Court) pleading guilty’, where he had said he was “practising his driving.” His Honour said: “Driving? without a licence is a serious) matter, because an insurance) company has the right to) refuse to indemnify an> owner.” There were also complications with any possible third party suit against a 17-year-old youth, his Honour said. Mr J. G. Leggat, for the Christchurch City Council!

traffic department, conceded that no particular matters of gravity had been brought to the magistrate’s notice. On the other hand, disqualification for an unlicensed driver was not unusual, he said. And Stewart had not only been an unlicensed driver, but an inexperienced one. “This is not a case of a licensed driver merely overlooking the renewal of his licence,” said his Honour, dismissing the appeal. “The magistrate was entitled to take the view that the appellant showed some measure of I irresponsibility, and that disqualification was a nece ary deterrent for such irresponsibility.” Mr Leggat said he would not seek costs.