MOTORIST'S FAILURE TO GIVE INFORMATION.

Hutt News, Volume 1, Issue 32, 17 January 1929, Page 9

MOTORIST'S FAILURE TO GIVE INFORMATION.

Relative to Alleged Offence.

On Wednesday, 9tli inst.,. before Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., an interpretation of subsection 2 of section 32 of "The Motor Vehicles Act 1924" as amended by section 14 of ''The Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 1927" was sought by the Lower Hutt Borough. Council's Traffic Inspector in an information laid against t Mr. W. A. Cottle of Park Avenue, Lower Hutt. Mr. E. P. Bunny appeared for the informant and Mr. C. E. Barrett for the defendant.

The facts alleged' by the prosecution were that in September- last a "Studebaker'' car owned by the def andant was driven within the borough at a speed in the vicinity of forty miles per hour and that a notice was forwarded to the defendant by'the Traffic Inspector some eight days after the commission of the alleged offence requesting the defandant to give information as to the driver of the cay on the day in question. The defendant replied that as there were four licensed drivers in his family he had been unable to ascertain who the driver ■was. Proceedings were therefore taken. against the defendant for exceeding the speed limit but on the defence that the defendant was not driving the car being set up the information was withdrawn. Subsequently a further notice was forwarded to the defendant ia December last —some three months after the date of the alleged offence —requesting him to supply to the Traffic Inspector the name of the driver of the ear who exceeded the speed limit. Mr Cottle again re:. plied that lie had been unable to obtain the necessary particulars.

An information was therefore laid ugiiin*t Mr. Cottle for failing in December last to supply information as to the driver who had eommited an offence by exceeding the speed limit in September last.

Sub-section 32 of "The Motor Veri- | ■los Act 1924" as subsequently amended ' provides that ''The owner,of any motor vehicle shall, on being informed of any offence alleged to have been committed by the driver of such motor-vehicle while in charge thereof, whether such offence is an offence against this Act or' any, other Act or against any regulation or by-law made under uny Ap.t, and on, being requested»so to do by any eon- ■ stable or by any person duly appointed to control or inspect traffic, give all information in Ms possession, which*, may lead to the identification and apprehension of the driver, and if the owner fails to do so he commits an offence, against this Act." ■ ' ~ V Mr. Bunny, for the prosecution, set up that as Mr. Cottle had failed to advise who the driver was on the date of the ,alleged offence he had committed an offence, it being also submitted on behalf of the informant that a duty was imposed upon the defendant to know at all times who was in control of the. car, otherwise the Act would prove a fiasco. Mr. Barrett, for the defendant, submitted with respect that his learned friend's argument was absurd, as no such burden was imposed by the Statute, there was no indication from the how long such knowledge had to >be retained by a defendant and that 'he could not be expected as the Statute <

at present stands, to keep detailed records as to the users of his' oars on the chance of requests for such information being subsequently received. It was further contended for the defence that if such obligations had been intended by the Legislature to be imposed, the Statute would have made express provision therefor, and that as the Act was a penal one, it must be strictly construed in favour of the defandant. Mr Barrett also contended that the test of liability was one of bona fides and that if the defandant had in good faith unsuccessfully endeavoured to obtain the information, he was freed from any liability. •

The defendant then testified that there were four licensed drivers in his family and that on receiving the Inspector's request for the identity of the driver some eight days after the commission, of the alleged offence, his family were unable to remember: Who was driving the' ear. As the defandant was away practically every day on either of two farms owned by him, 'he had no personal knowledge of the driver's identity.

In giving judgment in favour of the defendant, Mr. Salmon stated that in such a case where he was satisfied to the bona fides of a defandant he could not enter a conviction.