Correspondence
| Published date | 01 January 1950 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X5002300115 |
| Date | 01 January 1950 |
| Subject Matter | Correspondence |
CORRESPONDENCE
79
of offence.
It
appears that when the appellant was convicted the
Police informed
the
Recorder that there was a warrant out against
him for driving amotor-car while under the influence of drink, and
the Recorder agreed to take it into consideration.
The
Lord Chief
Justice remarked that if a man is charged on indictment with an offence
under the Road Traffic Act for which he is liable to be disqualified
and there is a second charge against him, the Court might take that
into account;
but
the reason why in his opinion these offences under
the Road Traffic Act ought not to be taken into consideration is
because, unless there is a conviction of, for example, driving under
the influence of drink, or of driving a car when uninsured, there is
no power to disqualify the prisoner for holding a licence, and Parliament
has ordained that, unless special circumstances exist (which is a matter
with which the Divisional Court dealt at some length in the case of
Whittal v. Kirby
(194-7)
III
J.P.
I),
the person charged must be
disqualified and in certain other cases the licence must be endorsed.
In
the particular case of R. v. Collins, the Court thought that no
harm might have been done because the appellant received a sentence
of three years' penal servitude. None the less if the charge which had
been taken into consideration had been inquired into, the Court
might have considered that a period of disqualification for five or ten
years might have been appropriate, or, if it had turned out that the
man had been convicted two or three times before, the Court might
have imposed a disqualification for life. Again, if a sentence of six
months' imprisonment were passed in a particular case, it would be
most unsatisfactory to take into consideration a case of driving under
the influence of drink, because the period of disqualification must
be for a year. Accordingly the Court laid it down that for the future
offences
under
the Road Traffic Act for which disqualification for
driving or the endorsement of a licence is imposed, are not proper
cases to be taken into account when passing sentence for dishonesty
or some other matter.
Correspondence
To the Editor, THE
POLICE
JOURNAL
DEAR
SIR,-I
beg
to
write
with
reference
to article
"Court
Procedure
and
Criminal
Justice
Act,"
in
the
POLICE
JOURNAL,
volume
XXII,
NO.4.
On
page
308
you
state
that
offences
dealt
with
under
section
28 (1)
of
the
Criminal
Justice
Act,
1948,
are
not
subject
to
Costs
in
Criminal
Cases
Act,
1908.
Has
the
writer
overlooked Hastings &Folkestone Glass Co.,
Ltd.,
v. Kalson, 1948?
When
Section
28
of
the
Criminal
Justice
Act, 1948, was
passed
no
one
knew
actu-
all~
what"
Indic.ta~le
Offence"
meant
in law.
There
had
been
no
ruling.
There
was
adifference
of
OpInIOnas to
what
the
A-B
offences
were
to be
regarded
as.
The
Criminal
Justice
Act, 1948,
made
it
perfectly
clear
that
Section
28 (2) was to be
subject
to
the
Costs
in
Criminal
Cases
Act,
1908.
To continue reading
Request your trial