MOTORISTS AND DRINK

Hokitika Guardian, 3 September 1929, Page 7

MOTORISTS AND DRINK

THE MATTER OF PENALTIES. In passing sentence at New , Plymouth on Wednesday on Percy Ernest Guscolt, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of being drunk while in charge ol : a motor car, Mr It. W. Tate, S.M., made a statement in reply to an appeal from Mr A. A. Bennett, solicitor, to reconsider the sentences imposed recently upon H. W. Brown and W. M. M'Asey for the same offence. Guscott was placed on probation for 12 months. He was also prohibited and had his license cancelled for the same period and was ordered to pay £1 Is doctor’s fees. In passing sentence' Mr Tate said : “I have been asked to reconsider my attitude regarding penalties in these cases, and I have done so. As the problem is a grave one deserving the maturest consideration, I considered ’ tiie matter fully and carefully before 1 made my announcement last Thursday, and I have further considered it. I find no reasonable ground to retire from the attitude that I have taken up. On the contrary, I find that the publication of last week’s sentences did not deter, a few days later, the commission of the ofFehce which I am now considering. It was urged upon me that probation places these offenders on the same level as thieves. So does the law. Thieves that I may punish summarily, and intoxicated motorists that 1 may punish summarily, are all liable to the same punishment—three months’ imprisonment. • Every offender convicted of an imprisonment offence may be admitted to probation, and probation is surely more merciful than imprisonment. “It was further urger that prohibition of liquor and deprivation of license should not be imposed together. Prohibition of liquor seems a necessary factor in the punishment of this offence. It is inconvenient, no doubt, to be debarred from public houses, but people requiring to travel can find adequate accommodation everywhere, apart from licensed houses. Deprivation of license- is another necessary factor and imposes another inconvenience upon this class of offender; possibly the only inconvenience if lie is not a regular imbiber of liquor. It is these inconveniences that constitute the deterrent.

This is not al new tiling. I have warned intoxicated motorists again and again that the time was approaching when imprisonment without any option might have to be imposed. The offence is on the increase, and I am endeavouring to stem the tide with something less drastic such as this, where the roads are sinuous and undulating, with tar-sealed surfaces, requiring unremitting vigilance, and with, for the most part little or no control of traffic, and that traffic, a large one, it cannot be suggested that my duty to the community is discharged if I do not apply such deterrents as the law lays ready ito my hand.

“To wait until innocent lives are lost would be a betrayal of my duty ns I conceive it. I cannot retire from the attitude I have taken up. Drinking motorists can render that attitude unnecessary by separating their drinking from their motoring.” The sentences imposed on M’Asey and Brown last week were probation, prohibition and cancellation of license for one and two years respectively.