1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174 
New Ideas for Removing Motoring Injustices
Page 99
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Legal Authority Gives his Views on Punishment for Motoring Offences and Offers Valuable Suggestions QOME years ago a solicitor appeared at a London Police Court and pleaded " guilty " on behalf of a lady who had failed to renew her driving licence. He ekpressed some surprise when the magistrate imposed a fine of 23, but the magistrate pointed out that if he did not fine it defendant in accordance with his means the law would not be• observed. There was much good sense behind that remark, but unfortunately the con-. verse is not considered as often as it should be. Magistrates overlook' the fact that if they fine a defendant in excess of his ability to 'pay they are imposing an unreasonable penalty, and bringing themselves and the law which they have to uphold into contempt.
It is true that there are some magistrates who do take into account the position of the defendant, and modify their fines accord:1.'0y, but too often they have a set scale of fines which are based on the offence alone, and do not take into consideration the means of . the defendant. They overlook the fact that a fine of 40s. imposed on the driver of a private car who uses it only for his own pleasure merely means the drawing of that amount from a bank, whilst a penalty of a similar amount imposed on the driver of a commercial-vehicle may mean weeks of hardship.
It would be well if magistrates were to consider the question of the amount of fines in the same way as they would consider the amount which they would expect to receive if they asked the defendants for subscriptions to some charity. The magistrates might expect those who drive their own cars to put themselves down for, say, 21 or 22, but they would consider that the lorry driver who subscribed 5s. or 10s. was being equally generous.
The Formula Miles-per-conviction.
Hero is a new abbreviation, M.P.C„ representing
" miles-per-conviction." This is another point which many magistrates overlook when considering the amount of the fine to be imposed. They are unduly impressed by the fact that a driver has been convicted on one, two or more occasions, and they fail to take into account the opportunities which the driver has had of getting into trouble. They place all drivers who have been convicted the same number of times on the same level, and fine them all approximately the same amount. They fall to differentiate between the driver who drives all day and every day and he whomerely drives from time to time as occasion requires. They treat the driver who has driven 100,000 miles and who has been convicted five times as being, a much more serious offender than the one who has driven 20,000 miles and who has been convicted twice. Yet the former has a record of one conviction in 20,000 miles, whilst the record of the latter is one conviction in 10,000 miles. In such a case it may be said that the driver who has had only two convictions is tw:ce as bad an offender as the driver who has had five convictions.
There is no doubt that the majority of the police courts is overburdened with motoring cases. This is a serious matter for all concerned. It is a hardship on the magistrates who have to hear the cases. It is a hardship on the motorists, who in many cases have to wait for hours before their cases are reached, whilst finally, it is a hardship ou the solicitors who are instructed to defend the motoring cases, because they know that in the short time ,availableit is often impossible to Put their clients' cases as fully as they deserve.
The remedy would appear to be to have special courts which would deal. only with motoring offences, and in which the mag.strates would be persons who have at least some general knowledge of motoring, and who, for preference, are motorists themselves.
. It is true that the general theory is that a judge or a magistrate need not have any special knowledge of the subject matter of the cases with which he deals. His duty is to base his decision upon the evidence which is given by the witnesses. It is obvious that in order to be qualified to try a case of forgery it is not necessary that the judge should himself be ,a forger, or even an engraver, any more than the judge who tries a murder case need have committed murder. It is submitted, however, that in the case of motoring offences the position is different, At any rate, those who try them can have a practical knowledge of motoring although they may never have committed a motoring
offence themselves. It inay be questioned, however, whether there is any motorist of experience who has not at one time or another committed one or more of the . possible offences with which a motorist may be charged. .
Clearly those who try speed cases should have some actual knowledge of the speed at which cars can be driven with safety. Those who try other motoring cases, such as inefficient brakes, should have some knowledge of the actual application of brakes, and of their construction. Few things are more difficult than to explain to a non-motoring magistrate the construction of a silencer. So long as the police officer states that when he examined the silencer he saw smoke coming out of a crack, the magistrate is satisfied that the silencer must have been defective, In many other instances the defendant, or his solicitor, has the greatest difficulty in arguing a case because the magistrates have no knowledge of motorcars.
Appeals in Motoring Cases.
Although a certain amount of improvement in the provisions with regard to appeals to Quarter Sessions has been introduced by recent Statutes, there can be no doubt but that more real justice would be done if the procedure were further simplified. At the present time the cost of appealing is excessive, and this is due to some extent to the fact that solicitors have no right of audience at Quarter Sessions, and it is, therefore, neces
sary for counsel to be briefed. It would be of con-. siderable benefit to motorists if some form of Appeal Tribunal on lines similar to those of the Appeal Tribunal under the Road and Rail Traffic. Act, before which both solicitors and counsel have the right of audience, could be set up to deal with their appeals.