Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836603000301 |
| Date | 01 July 1966 |
| Published date | 01 July 1966 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal Law
VOL.
xxx. No. 3 JULy-SEPTEMBER,
1966
Courts of
Summary Jurisdiction
FAILING
TO REPORT ACCIDENT TO
POLICE
ON29 April 1966, adefendant appeared before
Mr.
John
Aubrey-Fletcher at Marlborough Street Magistrates'
Courton summonses for failing to stop andgive particularsafter
an accident and for failing to report an accident to police, con-
trary to sections 77
(I)
and 77 (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1960
respectively.
An independent witness for
the
prosecution gave evidence
that
the
car driven by the defendant collided with aRenault
car parked in Exhibition Road, S.W. and slightly damaged
the
rear offside wing of
the
parked car.
The
witness said
that
the
defendant's car did not stop at
the
scene
but
that
when it was
held up in traffic a few yards further on the defendant got
out
and inspected the nearside rear of his vehicle before driving on.
A police officer said
that
when he interviewed him some days
later, the defendant had said
"I
did stop. I got out of my car
and looked at it. I also looked at
the
car I thought Ihad
collided with. I
don't
know what car it was
but
there was
certainly no Renault there. I could see no damage at all to
either car and there was no-one there so I drove away."
In
evidence the defendant said he had thought he had
struck something with his back bumper. He had been moving
very slowly and stopped in traffic almost at once. He got
out
and examined his car and the cars parked alongside (one of
which he had felt must have been the car he had hit) found no
damage and drove off. He admitted he had not reported the
incident to police.
Counsel for
the
defendant argued
that
his client had
taken all reasonable steps to assure himself
that
no damage had
been caused to another vehicle and contended
that
(by
145
CL-I
14.6
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINAL
LAW
analogy with Harding v. Price (12 J.C.L. 169; 1948 I
All
E.R.
283) and Butler v. Whittaker (1955 C.L.R. 371) if this were so
he had committed no offence.
Mr. Aubrey-Fletcher commented that Harding v. Price
did not appear to have been greatly developed in subsequent
decisions. Without directly ruling on
the
defence arguments,
he dismissed the summons under s.77 (I), saying
that
the
defendant had been stationary in the vicinity of
the
accident
for sufficient time for any interested person to have demanded
his particulars,
but
convicted the defendant of failing to
report
the
accident to police.
CLAIM OF
RIGHT
TO MOVE AN OBSTRUCTING MOTOR-CAR
Aprivate prosecutor appearing before Marlborough Street
Magistrates' Court alleged wilful damage to a cost of
£7
os. 6d.
to a motor-car.
The
proceedings were
under
s.I4
(I)
of the
Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, by which the
offence is committed "wilfully or maliciously."
The
prosecutor said that he left his car outside aprivate
address in Royal Hospital Road, S.W.IO., at about 9 a.m.,
clocked on at work at a car service station nearby, and "forgot
the car was there." He returned after II a.m. and found a
quarter-light window retaining catch broken, the car moved
ashort distance,
and
"glue, which could only be moved with
difficulty," spread over one of the front seats.
The
damage
claimed was wholly for the window, nothing for the seat.
The
defendant's evidence was that he found the car
wholly blocking the exit from his garage, he made enquiries at
three shops nearby (but not at the service station), waited ten
minutes, and then, requiring his own car for attending a
business meeting in London, he pushed open
the
quarter-
light, without breaking any part of it and moved the obstruct-
ing car.
He
said he felt so annoyed by the obstruction that he
then
returned to his dining room, and, armed with what he
agreed was a childish form of conciliation for his mood,
spread marmalade over the car's front seat. He added to the
court
that
afriend of his had previously dealt similarly with an
offending car and had
not
been obstructed again.
The
Magistrate did
not
have theadvantage of hearing legal
argument,
but
one may perhaps here interpose the reflections
which an amicus curiae might have laid before the court in
determining some of the difficulties buried in the case.
To continue reading
Request your trial