CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
Page 71
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AS a matter of general principle the Court of Appeal had no hesitation in upholding a penalty of five years' imprisonment on two men sentenced at Essex Assizes last October for receiving £1,700 worth of cigarettes from a hi-jacked lorry. Lord Parker, the Lord Chief Justice, in giving judgement last week, said that hijacking was too prevalent and could not occur were it not for the fact that there were organizations ready to accept and dispose of the goods stolen.
Opinions expressed at this level should have a salutary effect all the way down through the lower courts. Lorry thefts on the grand scale are almost always the work of well-organized gangs supplied at one end of the line with information about what is being carried and at the other end with means for disposing of the stolen goods. At one stage or another violence or corruption inevitably enters and spreads its debasing influence even among normally honest members of the public.
No resistance
Drivers interviewed on radio and television and in the Press freely admit that they would offer no resistance if their lorry were hi-jacked. People who should know affirm that a disquietingly high proportion— possibly as many as 90 per cent—of the drivers involved in this type of crime are in collusion with the thieves. In such unwholesome ways the influence of the hijackers is percolating through the road transport industry.
Harsh penalties against everybody concerned, including and perhaps especially the receivers, should be a worth-while deterrent even if the crooks revert to some other practice such as stealing vehicles left unattended. At least this will maintain a clear distinction between the criminal underworld and a road transport industry solidly on the side of law and order.
The distinction is worth making and worth preserving. Transport and movement are essential to the criminal whatever the offence. His aim once he has committed the crime is usually to get as far away as possible and as quickly as possible. The motor vehicle is ideal for the purpose. Without knowing it road users must often find themselves travelling in close company with crooks. It is worth taking some trouble and imposing severe punishment to prevent blurring the edges between legitimate and unlawful practices on the roads.
Hi-jackers and lorry draggers confront hazards additional to those met by criminals who merely use the roads to make their getaway. The vehicle observer corps movement is spreading and taking on new refinements such as the lorry spotter taking down vehicle numbers along a busy road. Radio communication is opening up new possibilities. Police co-operation helps to tighten the net. New immobilizing, warning and locking devices are continually coming on the market.
Without the help of trustworthy drivers and other staff much of the value of security precautions is lost. It is important that they should feel no bond of identity or sympathy with the criminals. The danger that this may happen is increased by the wide range of offences for which the driver may find himself prosecuted. Some of these are serious and merit the stiff sentences which they often receive. What is needed is a clear line separating these so-called motoring offences from crimes in which the use of a vehicle is merely incidental.
Facile identifications
Penologists are not always as helpful as they might be when they insist—as they sometimes do—that a crime is a crime whatever the nature and circumstances. Because the motoring offence is the most frequent it is described as the great 20th century crime in the same way as road accidents are described as the modern disease comparable with the plague and the Black Death. Legal and medical authorities are criticized when they appear not to accept these facile identifications.
They are even less useful than the attempts to evaluate track costs applicable to both road and rail. The existence of the mechanical vehicle has created offences not previously defined or even suspected. They are not merely new; they are in some ways different from the existing category of criminal offences. The general public intuitively believe this and it should equally be accepted in the higher reaches of the law.
The lorry driver is aware that the hijacking of his vehicle is an offence of an entirely different order from, say, exceeding the speed limit. This awareness is an important factor in his willingness to co-operate in foiling the thieves and in his refusal to accept inducements for collusion with them.
There are links between the two categories of offence. Evidence has been brought forward which indicates that there is a connection between a criminal record and a tendency to be involved in a road accident. In the same way the man who neglects his vehicle, the pirate who operates without a licence, the cowboy who shows no regard for speed limits or statutory hours of work, are more likely than reputable drivers and operators to become involved in vehicle thefts.
A hybrid
The fly-tipper is a hybrid. He is receiving money under false pretences in that he undertakes to carry a load to an approved dumping ground and instead dumps it on the first vacant site available. He may even have stolen the tipper in the first place. Certainly it is unusual for him to hold any kind of licence. He is not strictly comparable with a hi-jacker but his activities go a little beyond those normally classed as motoring offences.
Reputable tipping vehicle operators are planning to appoint officials or vigilantes to detect the fly-tipper and report him to the authorities. There is an interesting parallel with the work of the vehicle observer corps. In each case the law—whether represented by the licensing authority or the police—finds difficulty unaided in bringing the offenders to book. The operators chiefly concerned are taking the observer functions of the law into their own hands, forming the other half of the pincer movement.
If it is really to bite it must have teeth. The offenders who are caught by one means or the other, or by both, must be punished on a scale which seems to justify the effort involved. Otherwise operators can easily become discouraged and decide that the effort is not worth the reward. Lord Parker's stern comments should not be allowed to rest in the reports of the Court of Appeal. They should be quoted in all cases when vehicle thieves are being brought to book.