Divisional Court Cases
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835501900404 |
| Published date | 01 October 1955 |
| Date | 01 October 1955 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional Court Cases
IMPRISONMENT
OF
MINOR
FOR DRIVING OFFENCE
Davidson-Houston v. Lanning
THE question raised by
the
above case (1955 1 W.L.R.
858) was
the
relation between
the
provisions restricting
the
imprisonment of persons
under
21 with
the
requirement of
s.7
(4) of
the
Road Traffic Act 1930
that
aperson who drives
when disqualified shall be sentenced to imprisonment unless
"having regard to
the
special circumstances of the case" a
fine would be an adequate penalty.
On
the
rjth
September 1954
the
defendant, atrooper
stationed at Bovington Camp, Dorset, was charged before
the
Wareham justices with three offences: (1) taking and driving
away a motor-car without the owner's consent contrary to
sec. 28 of
the
Road Traffic Act 1930; (2) using the motor-car
on a road without there being a policy of insurance in force in
respect of
third
party risks contrary to sec. 35 of
the
Act;
(3) driving the motor-car on a road when disqualified contrary
to sec. 7 of the Act.
The
facts proved or admitted were
that
the defendant was
20 years of age on
the
15th July, 1954.
On
the
30th October
1953, the defendant had been convicted by
the
Eastbourne
magistrates of driving when uninsured and for this offence
had
been fined £5 and disqualified from driving for 12 months.
He
was at
the
same time convicted
and
fined £ 1 for driving
without a road fund licence. On the
rzth
November 1953 he
was convicted by
the
Camberley justices for failing to report
an accident and fined £1 and for driving without a road fund
licence was given an absolute discharge.
On
the
rSth Novem-
ber
1953 he was convicted by
the
Cranbrook magistrates for
driving without reasonable consideration, driving when unin-
sured
and
for failing to stop when required by
the
police to do
so. Fines were imposed and
the
defendant was disqualified
from driving for 12 months. On
the
3rd
May 1954
the
Eastbourne justices removed
the
defendant's disqualification
3°5
To continue reading
Request your trial