Bad passing conviction

Waimarino Bulletin, Volume 6, Issue 244, 31 May 1988, Page 8

Bad passing conviction

A Hamilton man appeared in the Ohakune District Court recently on a driving charge where his evidence was in direct conflict with that of the police.

Ralph M i c h a e 1 Woulfe, 35, engineer of Hamilton, represented himself to defend a charge of driving a motor vehicle on SH1 at Irirangi on January 7 in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, might have been dangerous to the public. The case was heard by Judge E.W. Unwin on Thursday 12 May. Police Sergeant Neil Coker of Ohakune appeared for the prosecution. The prosecution case was that defendant, while driving north, had overtaken two vehicles in a passing manoeuvre which involved defendant's vehicle crossing solid yellow road markings as h e approached a 'blind' bend of the road. The first prosecution witness was Myra Wilcox, a student from Whangaparaoa. She told the Court that as she was driving north on SH1 on the day in question she had been in a small line of traffic with defendant's car in front of her behind two other cars while behind her was a police vehicle. As the vehicles approached double yellow

lines on the road and a 'blind' corner, witness told the Court that she saw defendant's vehicle pull out and overtake the two other vehicles in front of him and disappear. When the road straightened out and no road markings were evident, witness said that the police vehicle overtook her and she latcr saw both the police vehicle and defendant's car parked beside the road with a constable talking to the occupant of the car. Under cross-examina-tion witness said that she could not see defendant's vehicle complete the overtaking manoeuvre and regain the correct side of the road because of the bend ahead. The next prosecution witness was police constable John Fraser of Ohakune. He told the Court that at about 5pm on January 7 he had been on patrol on SH1 south of Waiouru in the Ohakune police vehicle. He was following several motor vehicles traveling northwards when he noted the defendant's vehicle pull out and begin an overtaking manoeuvre on a

broken yellow line. Before defendant had completed overtaking the two cars ahead the defendant's vehicle had crossed the double yellow lines and was on the right-hand side of the road as he a p - proached the rise and bend ahead, according to witness. In the opinion of this witness, who was familiar with that stretch of road, it would have been impossible for the defendant to have seen any motor vehicles traveling south on the right hand side of the road because of the rise and bend ahead. Witness said that, when it was safe to do so, he overtook the other vehicles and stopped the defendant who, when asked for an explanation of his driving behaviour, said nothing except: "See you in Court". Defendant then gave evidence on his own behalf and said that he had been traveling north on SH1 with his parents as passengers after a holiday in the South Island. He had been in a line of traffic which had been moving at less than the speed limit when he decided to overtake the two vehicles ahead of him. He said that he completed the manoeuvre and his car was on the left-hand side of the

road before reaching the solid yellow line. He told the Court that his parents were in the car at the time and he would not risk them. Under cross examination he told the Court that he had "200 yards clear visibility ahead at the start of the overtaking manoeuvre and 50 yards at the end." In his summary up Judge Unwin said that this case came down to one of credibility and, if in doubt, the Court must always rule i n favour of the defendant. However, because of the evidence presented by the two prosecution witnesses, he could not accept the explanation given by the defendant. He reminded the Court that, while he did not wish to make an example of this defendant (who was a mature and experienced driver facing his first offence) SH1 was the busiest highway in N e w Zealand where most head-on collisions occur and defendant had overtaken not one, but two, vehicles in a single manoeuvre as the 'coming of traffic' approached a bend. Defendant was convicted and fined $150, court costs $65 and was disqualified from driving for 30 days. he was ordered to pay $64 witness expenses.