REPLY TO CRITICISM

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 183, 6 July 1937, Page 4

REPLY TO CRITICISM

STATEMENT BY J.P. LENIENCY CHAIIGE. Per Press Association. INVERCARGILL, July 5. In reply to the criticism by the Minister of Transport (Hon. R. Semple) of undue leniency being extended to drunken motorists by some Justices of the Peace, Mr R. J. Gumming, J.P., ivrites as follows to the Southland times.

“Public opinion throughout the Dominion will support Mr Semple in his determination to put an end to drunkenness while in charge of motor vehicles. Three cases of undue leniency by Justices of the Peace are named. Mr R. J. Gumming was one of the two justices on the Bench in tho Invercargill case, and, as there is a case to answer. I am, sir, with your permission, going to make the answer. I will do so as a private citizen fully conversant with the circumstances.

“A man was charged with being intoxicated while in charge of a motor car. The case was proved, but there were mitigating circumstances which apparently are being lost sight of. Accused had driven to a quiet spot in Leven Street near the old Drill Hall, where he was comparatively cut of harm’s way. Whether he proceeded there in an intoxicated state was not in evidence. He might quite reasonably have driven there Indore the effects of the liquor were on him. The benefit of the doubt w.as due to him. A Court in session has its responsibilities for ‘a just balance.’ The man, while technically in charge, was using the car as a sleeping-den only. He was not driving or endangering users of the road. Had ho gone out of the car and slept under a hedge the fine by a Magistrate would have been light, sa.y, £l. The fine imposed in the circumstances was £5, which I still consider was ample. His name was suppressed and his license was not endorsed because he was a Government employee and otherwise would have been dismissed.

“The Court felt justified in taking into consideration those dependent on him who would have been the chief sufferers, also that the fine in itself was sufficient to meet the case. A\ ith tho otlier two cases I am not concerned. Each case should stand on it.s own legs.”