PORIRUA FATALITY

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 102, 27 October 1933, Page 8

PORIRUA FATALITY

LEVEL CROSSING SMASH

SENTENCE OF COURT

HEAVY PINE IMPOSED

Stanley Frank Lincoln, who had been found guiltjy of negligent driving of a motor-car so as to cause death, was today brought before his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) for sentence. The jury in its verdict added a rider making a strong recommendation to mercy. Lincoln " was fined £50 and an order was made with respect to -.his driving lieeuce. The case arose out of a level crossing accident at Porirna, involving the death of four of the seven persons in the motor-car driven by Lincoln. Those killed were prisoner's wife, his four-year-old daughter, Frances, Mrs. Francis Lena Gaskin, and Miss Julia Maud Enwright. . Mr. J. S. Hanna, who appeared for Lincoln, said that in this case there was no suggestion of intoxication on the part of the prisoner. In more ways than one, prisoner had already been tremendously punished. Lincoln himself received most severe injuries and was for more than two months a patient, in the Wellington Hospital. Although he had been discharged from hospital since the end of July he had not yet been pronounced fit: enough to return to his usual occupation.. Apart altogether from his physical injuries, prisoner's life must forever remain shadowed by the tragedy. In view of all the circumstances, counsel said he thought tho ends of justice might well be met if no further punishment were added to what.prisoner had already suffered. With great respect, counsel suggested that tho prisoner might be ordered to come up for sentence within some period which the Court might fix. HIS HONOUR'S REMARKS. Addressing the prisoner, his Honour said the case had caused Mm considerable difficulty and anxiety. So far as the question of personal punishment was concerned, there was the fact that the accident resulted in the destruction not only of two of accused's friends, but also of his wife and one of his children—to both of whom it would appear from the evidence that the prisoner was greatly devoted. No doubt tho occurrence would entail life-long remorse. That, however, was not the only question which the Court had to consider.' It was necessary that tho course taken by the Courts should be such as would operate as a deterrent. There were three facts, however, in this case which he felt must,not bo lost sight of. Ono was that the jury had made' a strong recommendation in favour of leniency, and his practice was wherever possible to give the fullest effect to the recommendation of the jury. Second, there was no question in this case of intoxication. It would appear that . the prisoner had not touched alcoholic liquor on tho day of tho accident. Tho other fact was that the prisoner had not sought to exculpate himself by false statements. His Honour said his view was this: that at the time the accident happened the prisoner was not fit to be driving. Lincoln left Palmerston North that morning, driving the motor-car, at half-past 4. He must, therefore, have risen -before 4 o'clock. Ho drove to Wellington, arrived here about half-past 8, and from the evidence he appeared to have been driving between Wellington and Miramar and other places during a great part of the day; conse-quently,-when ho left about 5 o'clock, he.was'probably nearly half asleep and not fit to bo driving a car. Under no other hypothesis^ in his Honour's opinion, could the prisoner's very gravo negligence be explained. Now as to the question of a deterrent. Tliero could be no greater deterrent to offences of this kind than the certainty that there would be no mis- ; carriago of justice, and that juries would not hesitate to convict when uegligenco was proved; and there should be this further knowledge— and this was by no means unimportant—that almost as a matter of certainty there . would follow upon conviction a prohibition against the holding by the offender of a driving licence for several years. His Honour said he had considered anxiously all tho facts of tjjie case, and he must confess that ho had grave doubts as to whether ho should not imposo a sentence of impris.onment. However, he had coino to the conclusion that the ends of justice might bo served by his not adopting that course. In his opinion, it was better — especially when there was a recommendation of lenience-by the jury, and where tho .offender was of good character—to err, if err it be, on tho side of leniency.

THE PENALTY.

His Honour then fined prisoner the sum of £50; in default, six months' imprisonment. In addition, his driving licence would be suspended for tile remainder of the term. In addition to that, the Court declared that the prisoner be disqualified from getting a licence for a period of five years after the expiration of the present licence.