Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835602000201 |
| Date | 01 April 1956 |
| Published date | 01 April 1956 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal Law
VOL.
xx.
NO.2
APRIL-JUNE,
1956
Courts
of Summary Jurisdiction
APPEARANCE OF NATIONAL SERVICE MAN FOR PART TIME
TRAINING
AN
unusual form of words in a Statute recently gave rise to
l"'\.
adiscussion about its meaning in a case heard at West
London Magistrates' Court.
The
defendant was charged with
failing to appear for training under section 5 of
the
National
Service Act 1948. Section 5 of this Act reads:
"A
person who fails to comply with a training notice
shall be liable to be apprehended and unless he has some
reasonable excuse punished in the same manner as a
person belonging to an auxiliary force failing to appear
when called into actual or permanent service or on
embodiment . . . "
It
was proved
that
atraining notice had been served on
the defendant personally and that he did not appear at
the
annual camp
but
that
aletter was received from him at the
end
of the
camp
apologising for his non-appearance.
In
this letter, as in the evidence he gave, he stated that his
parents had a restaurant business and, due to illness, they were
both incapacitated, necessitating his presence to look after the
business.
He
and his parents depended entirely on this
business.
He
admitted that
the
gross takings averaged about
£40 daily for a seven day week.
The
question then arose whether this was a reasonable
excuse.
The
magistrate said
that
these words must mean
something reasonable in a reasonable man in the circumstances.
In
this case
the
circumstances are that every man is liable to
do some national service with the effect
that
there is nearly
always going to be an interruption of work and agreat sacrifice.
'Reasonable' in this case must therefore be different from what
10,5
l-CL
106
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINAL
LAW
would be regarded as reasonable for failing to keep an
appointment such as with adoctor or dentist. Undoubtedly
the
defendant was hard pressed with both parents incapacitated
and only he able to act as manager at the moment except at
high cost. Nevertheless this was not a small business which
could not support the cost of a manager for two weeks even if
it meant
that
for those two weeks no profit was made.
If
it had
been a small business that would have had to be shut down the
excuse might have been considered reasonable,
but
in this case
the business could have stood the employment of a manager
for those two weeks.
The
excuse was therefore not reasonable
and
the
defendant
must
be found guilty.
AN UNUSUAL FORM OF CARELESS DRIVING
The
usual types of careless driving are where amotorist
fails to observe a traffic sign or does not notice a road junction
or
the
traffic crossing at thatjunctionor in some otheromission,
usually due to a momentary lack of concentration. An unusual
variety occurred in a case heard recently at West London
Magistrates' Court.
The
facts were simple.
In
astream of traffic moving in
fits and starts one vehicle stopped. Shortly afterwards the
vehicle behind was pushed into it by a third vehicle.
It
was
the driver of this third vehicle who appeared in answer to
the
summons for driving without due care and attention.
His defence was that
"My
foot slipped off the brake pedal
on to the accelerator, and Icould not avoid the lorry in front."
This
was his statement to
the
police officer at the time and he
repeated it in evidence.
In
fact his foot became jammed
between
the
two pedals.
The
officer also gave evidence that
the
brake pedal was glossy, the
rubber
having been worn
away.
The
defendant admitted that he knew that it was in
this condition before he started to drive.
The
magistrate decided that 'careless driving' is not only
driving a fit vehicle carelessly
but
that it could cover knowingly
driving a vehicle which is not in a fit condition.
The
driver is
doing something which he knows may cause difficulties
and
if
he takes out the vehicle when it is in this condition, at the very
least he
must
take extra care to prevent any dangerous results.
Even accepting the defendant's explanation he was therefore
not
driving with sufficient care as the difficulty which must
To continue reading
Request your trial