HC Deb 10 July 1930 vol 241 cc665-85
Colonel HOWARD-BURY

I beg to move, in page 15, line 31, at the end, to insert the words: Provided that a person shall not be convicted under this sub-section solely on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness. I look upon this Amendment as an extremely important one. At the present time, as the Bill stands, on the word of a young policeman who has just been appointed, a man can be fined £50 for a first conviction, and £100 for a second or subsequent conviction and sentenced to four months' imprisonment solely on the uncorroborated evidence of one young constable. [An HON. MEMBER: "He might be an old one."] There are both kinds of constables, but every constable has to be young some time, and we have to make rules and regulations to take into account a young constable as well as an old one. He may be a man who has just been appointed and knows very little about motors, and because, in his view, a person is driving dangerously, then, on the evidence of that young constable, a man may be sentenced to no less than four months' imprisonment. We know that in various cases—for instance, in street offences—there has to be a second witness, some corroborative evidence, and all that we are asking here is that a person shall not be convicted on the evidence of one person. Clause 10 (3), for what is a much less grave offence, the question of speed, lays down that a person shall not be liable to be convicted of the offence solely on the evidence of one wit- ness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person charged was driving the vehicle at such greater speed. That is a comparatively minor offence, to obtain a conviction for which two witnesses are necessary. How much more necessary is it, when there is a very serious offence, that there should be corroborative evidence, and all that we are asking here is that there should be such corroborative evidence. If it be right and proper to have it for a minor offence, surely it is right and proper to have it for a major offence? Some people may say that this applies only to the rich man, but, after all, there are many drivers of commercial cars who will be put at the mercy of a constable's evidence. Such a driver may be convicted, and may lose his job. People may say, "Let him appeal. He has the right of appeal." But do people realise what it will cost a man if he appeals? It will cost, probably, £100, and no ordinary motor-driver has that money available in order to appeal.

What is the law in Scotland? It says that no man may be convicted solely on the evidence of one person. We put a question to the Lord Advocate. We asked him definitely whether, during the 27 years that the Act has been in force for dangerous driving in Scotland, there had been any difficulty there in obtaining two witnesses or corroborative evidence, and he said, "I must, in justice and fairness, say that we have had no difficulty whatever in obtaining convictions in Scotland." That Act in Scotland has proved the necessity of having corroborative evidence, and having been proved to be working successfully in Scotland, we ought to do the same thing here. We are starting what is, after all, a quite new offence, and a very serious offence indeed, and it is most dangerous that we should allow a person to be convicted solely on the evidence of one person, without any corroborative evidence. We are not saying that it is necessary absolutely to have two witnesses to the actual fact, but we suggest that there should be a second witness for the circumstances of the case.

We are told, too, that this Bill does not alter the existing law. It alters it very much. We have taken away the speed limit, but, instead, we have put in two new offences—dangerous driving and careless driving. We have altered the law very considerably, and I maintain that we ought most certainly here to have corroborative evidence. Seeing that this has worked so satisfactorily for the past 27 years in Scotland, seeing that the Lord Advocate has told us that he has had no difficulty whatever in obtaining convictions, I think it takes away the whole basis and foundation of the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not think that in this country we should start a new principle altogether. I do not see that there is likely to be any difficulty in carrying out the Amendment.

Sir GERVAIS RENTOUL

I beg to second the Amendment.

I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) that this is a most important Amendment. It is one of a series covering the same point which have been put on the Order Paper, and it is an Amendment which we desire to apply, not only to this particular class of offence, but to other offences which are created under this Bill. In this Bill, a number of new offences are being created, and I feel sure that it is the desire of all parties in this House that those offences should be treated as carefully in the future as other offences have been treated in the past. We are in entire agreement that dangerous driving is a very serious offence indeed in certain circumstances. At the same time it is important that adequate and proper protection should be given to the accused person against any possible miscarriage of justice. When this Bill was passing through Committee there was a considerable amount of argument on this point. The first suggestion made was that there ought to be two witnesses, as is the case in Scotland. That seems to dispose of the objection that was raised by the Minister of Transport that the necessity of having two witnesses would make this Measure administratively impossible. I think the hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that if this Amendment were insisted upon and passed he, for one, would wash his hands of this Bill, because he felt that it would not be possible to put it into force. It is difficult to reconcile that view with the present state of things in Scotland where this Act is intended to apply. We are not asking, under this Amendment, for two witnesses, but we are asking for some corroborative evidence besides that of a single witness which is at present provided for in the Bill.

The learned Solicitor-General knows perfectly well that corroboration for certain offences is no new thing in our law; it simply means that some facts have been produced which tend to render more probable the truth of the testimony or the witness on some material point. It may well be that, in many cases, the magistrate would not convict without some corroboration being forthcoming. I think magistrates who took this Measure seriously, and administered it in a proper judicial spirit, would insist upon corroboration, but in regard to this class of offence we ought to lay down definitely, as has been laid down in connection with other offences, that corroboration on material details is necessary. It was suggested during the Committee stage that if this Amendment were insisted upon many people might escape who would otherwise be convicted. I think we all agree that it would be better for a few guilty people to escape than that one single innocent person should be convicted.

Where there is a possibility of an error being made, the law provides already for corroboration. In bad cases of dangerous driving I cannot conceive that it would not be perfectly easy to obtain corroboration. It is almost impossible to imagine any serious case of dangerous driving where there would not be any amount of corroborative evidence forthcoming. This Measure applies not only to dangerous driving, but also to a comparatively trivial offence, namely, the offence of carelessness. Personally, I take strong exception to the creation of such an offence, and I am supported in that view by the fact that the Royal Commission itself was opposed to the creation of the separate offence of careless driving as distinct from dangerous driving. This Amendment is not intended to apply to what is relatively a trivial offence. The Bill provides that if any person drives a motor vehicle without reasonable consideration for other persons using the roads he shall be guilty of an offence. It may be quite right to lay down a condition of that kind, although the Royal Commission, after very careful consideration, came to the opposite conclusion.

I am not concerned with arguing that point at the moment, and, for the sake of my argument, I am prepared to admit that it may be perfectly proper to create an offence of that kind in order to ensure that all who use the roads should show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road. After all, an offence of that kind is largely a matter of opinion, and what is considered to be reasonable consideration in the mind of one person may be considered to be totally unreasonable in the mind of another person. This offence is largely a matter of opinion and for this reason corroborative evidence ought to be forthcoming.

When we were discussing this matter in Committee, I think the Minister of Transport made a false point when he suggested that no corroboration was necessary in the case of murder. The answer to that is that a man may be found guilty of murder when there is no witness forthcoming at all relating to the actual offence. Of course, the strongest and overwhelming corroboration is needed of every material point in a case of murder before there is any possibility of the accused man being convicted. I think the Minister of Transport will admit that there is no comparison between the crime of murder and the kind of offence which we are now considering. A man may be convicted solely on the evidence of one young policeman. I should be the last to suggest any unfairness in regard to the police, because I think they carry out extremely difficult duties in a manner which reflects the utmost credit upon them. You are bound to have here and there, in a force like that, some black sheep, and men who may be a little over-officious. On the whole, however, I think we have every reason to be satisfied with the manner in which the police discharge their duties. Anyone who has been brought into contact with the proceedings in our criminal Courts must realise that the police are only human, and, once a charge has been made, there is a natural tendency to try to support it and carry it through. There is always a natural desire to obtain a conviction, and for that reason, if for no other, I submit that we are entitled to lay down that corrobora- tion of the evidence of one witness on material points ought to be insisted upon.

The principle of corroboration is not a new one. There are any number of cases where corroboration, for one reason or another, is insisted upon. There is no difficulty about that. We are not enforcing some entirely novel principle, and I cannot help wondering why it is that the Government do not see their way to accept this particular Amendment. The only objection that was raised during the discussion in Committee was that it would possibly enable certain people who ought to be convicted to escape, but I urge most strongly that that is a consideration to which we should not attach much importance.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir James Melville)

I hope this Amendment will not be persisted in. After the discussion of this point in Committee, I thought we had arrived at some measure of agreement. I will state quite shortly the reason why the Government oppose the Amendment. Although we have listened carefully to the arguments advanced in its favour, we have not, as yet, been able to find a solitary reason why the motorist charged with this offence should be in a better position than any other person charged with an offence. There are some crimes like that of perjury where the difficulty of proof is notoriously great. There are other crimes dealing with matters of indecency where a false charge is more likely to be preferred than in other cases, and those are offences in regard to which the law provides for every great care, and requires that corroboration of the evidence should be forthcoming. Where a charge is brought by an alleged accomplice the law says that there should be corroboration of the evidence of the accomplice. I do not see why even in the case of a young policeman, if he gives his evidence satisfactorily, it should not be accepted.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY

Is it not a matter of opinion in the case of dangerous driving?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I think dangerous driving will be found to be a matter of fact. It is quite right to say that in offences relating to speed only we ought to preserve the requirement of corroboration because we have felt that opinion is not a very reliable thing, and it is much better to have the evidence of two persons who have measured the time which a motor car takes in passing over a certain distance. I am quite unable to sec, however, why, assuming that a motorist has knocked somebody down, and may have killed him, or rendered him unconscious, he should escape conviction because there is only one witness who has seen what has happened. It would seem to me to be most unreasonable in this Bill to enact a positive defence which would enable a man, no matter how satisfied a bench was that the offence had been committed, through his counsel to say, "You have only the evidence of one person, and, therefore, I am entitled as a matter of positive law to an acquittal."

Colonel HOWARD-BURY

Is not that the case in Scotland at the present time?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I was reminded about the law of Scotland on a number of occasions when the Bill was in Committee. I do not profess to have any knowledge of the working of the law of Scotland, but I do know that great numbers of our Scottish friends come over the Border, and it is said that they never go back. That may be due to British law, but I really have not heard a single reason adduced for considering the Scottish law to be preferable to British law. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have had great advantages in connection with this Bill; a good many of us on this side have gone to considerable lengths in meeting some of their speed requirements; and I would respectfully and urgently suggest that this is not a matter which they really ought to press.

Colonel ASHLEY

With great respect for the learned Solicitor-General, I never heard a weaker performance than his speech just now. He simply said, "I do not agree with you, and there it is." Of course, he has a right to his opinion, but we did hope to hear some better arguments than he has put forward. The Law of Scotland may be right or it may be wrong, but, at any rate, the fact that the law of Scotland has worked quite well in the past in requiring two witnesses at any rate disposes of the contention that if we had two witnesses here in England it would not be possible to get a conviction. I never heard that in Scotland there were less convictions for dangerous driving or anything of that sort than in England. The Solicitor-General and the Minister may prefer the English law to the Scottish law, but, at any rate, they cannot say that the requirement that there shall be two witnesses makes it impossible to work the law. The Solicitor-General very carefully refrained from informing the House that one of the most essential ingredients in this Clause is the phrase: If a man drives a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public. If, as under Clause 10, it is necessary to have two witnesses on the question of speed, why, when speed is an element of dangerous driving in Clause 11, does the Solicitor-General say that only one witness is necessary? That seems to me to be most unfair. If the motorist drives at over 20 miles an hour, he will require two witnesses, but if he is alleged to have driven dangerously, which may, and probably will, mean imprisonment for a first offence, one witness is sufficient. That, I think, is extraordinarily unfairly loading the dice against the motorist.

As to the general principle of requiring one witness or two, may I draw the attention of the House, because it is rather important to read the Clauses that we are discussing, to the fact that practically all the fingerposts in Sub section (1) of Clause 11, for the guidance of the constable or otter person who charges a motorist with dangerous driving, are purely matters of opinion? It is a matter of opinion whether a man is driving recklessly; it is a matter of opinion whether he is driving in a manner which is dangerous to the public; the question of having regard to all the circumstances of the case is certainly a matter of opinion; it is certainly a matter of opinion when we are told that we have to review the nature, condition and use of the road; and it is most obviously a matter of opinion when one of the considerations which have to be taken into account is the amount of traffic which is actually at the time, or which may reasonably be expected to be, on the road. I put it to the House that, as these are entirely matters of opinion, the opinion of one man ought not to be taken. We are not asking for the opinion of two people. All that we are asking is, as I understand my hon. and gallant Friend, that there should be some evidence corroborative of the word of one man, which may send a man to prison for a first offence. I really do not understand the position of the Government in this matter. I said in Committee, and I say here again, that they have in many cases been extremely reasonable, and have met us generously, but on this matter, on which the feeling of motorists generally is very strong, I do think that, even if they cannot accept this Amendment, they might at any rate agree to the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES

The hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) has said that he could not understand the attitude of the Minister in not accepting this Amendment, but I think there are many in this House on both sides who fail to understand the attitude of hon. Members above the Gangway in constantly moving Amendments to give more protection to the dangerous driver on the roads. I hope that this Amendment will be resisted by the House. Let us look at the matter from the practical point of view. I am quite certain that, among the Members on this side of the House, there is quite a number who have had occasion to sit as magistrates and to deal with prosecutions of this character. It has not been my privilege to sit on the bench, but it has frequently been my duty to act either for the prosecution or for the defence in respect of dangerous driving, and I have never heard any complaint as to the law at the present moment in this connection. It is very remarkable that, in the speeches of hon. Members in this House to-day, and also in the Committee upstairs, not a single case has been adduced in which it was suggested that injustice had been done.

What, after all, is the position? Where one witness is called, whether he is a young policeman or a policeman of experience, the magistrates hears the evidence, and, if he is satisfied that there is no case upon that evidence, the summons is dismissed; and one has frequently heard a submission by the solicitor or counsel for the defendant that the evidence is not sufficient to justify a conviction. When that is so, what generally happens is that the magistrate suggests that the defendant's counsel or solicitor should proceed to call his evidence, and I am certain that, in a very large number of cases where that is done, the defendant himself can add sufficient evidence corroborative of that of the witness for the prosecution fully to justify the court in convicting. Then there is the question which has been asked by the Solicitor-General: Why should the motoring fraternity be so keen on having special provisions in the law to deal with motorists? It has been stated already that the law as to requiring corroborative evidence is confined to a comparatively small number of cases, where conviction would be difficult without some corroborative evidence. I trust that this Amendment will be resisted.

Mr. HALL-CAINE

The Solicitor-General put forward, as one of the chief reasons for rejecting this Amendment, the fact that he has gone a long way already to meet the speed requirements of the Opposition. Personally, I wish he had not gone so far to meet the speed requirements, and I think that there are many Members of the House who have shown by their votes that they are of the same opinion. The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) has said that this Amendment seeks to give more protection to the dangerous driver, but I beg to differ from him on that point. I am not at the moment thinking of the dangeous driver, but of the perfectly good driver, and there are many good drivers who might conceivably be thought by some policeman to be driving dangerously—I will not say a young policeman, because they are not all young, but by some policeman who, perhaps, was not experienced in motoring, who perhaps had never been in a motor car, but only in a motor omnibus, and he would be the judge of what is dangerous driving. There is no definition of dangerous driving laid down in this Bill, and, therefore, the policeman has to form his own opinion on the spur of the moment as to what is dangerous driving. I think the Solicitor-General might consider whether there is not some way—I do not know how we can split two witnesses into a witness and a half—in which we can get some corroborative evidence to assist in matters of this kind, so that they are not left entirely to one witness. I would point out that the greatest law-maker since the world began—even, as I am sure the Minister will agree, as great a law-maker as he is—namely, Moses, laid it down that in two witnesses there is truth, which would imply that in one witness you cannot rely on getting truth.

I suggest to the Minister that this is really a serious Amendment, and I honestly believe that it has been put down with the sincere desire, not to protect the dangerous driver, but to protect the careful driver who may be penalised in some way by a dangerous driver, who may turn and cut in, or something of that kind. I could explain a hundred ways in which the careful driver could be mistaken for a dangerous driver, though I do not propose to take up the time of the House by doing so. We on this side of the House are very vitally concerned with the paid driver—the chauffeur—and I suggest that, if he were charged with dangerous driving, and came under the very heavy penalty that there is for dangerous driving, it is almost certain that he would not be able to pay the fine. I have heard some of our friends on this side of the House say that the union would pay it for him, but I submit that if he were prosecuted the union would not dare to pay the fine for him, because there would be such a noise in the union if they paid for a man who had been convicted, and probably, in many cases, wrongly convicted. Therefore, on behalf of all concerned, I would plead with the Minister that he should give a little more careful consideration to this Amendment, or some variation of it.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS

As my name is attached to this Amendment, I should like to say a few words upon it. I entirely disagree with the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones), who suggested that to require two witnesses for the purpose of corroborative evidence would give more protection to the dangerous driver. The inference there is quite obvious. It is that the hon. Gentleman expects quite a large number of people to be accused and prosecuted and sent to prison on the evidence of one witness alone. That is a, very dangerous thing to suggest and it certainly should be resisted. The Solicitor-General told us that someone might possibly be knocked down and killed and then there would be no corroborative evidence. Surely, if someone has been knocked down and killed, there is sufficient corroborative evidence of the accident and of the dangerous driving. [Interruption.] I can understand the hon. Member's point. He thinks the corroborative evidence must be alive. I do not think that is necessary at all. Things have changed very considerably since the Minister made the announcement that he was going to have motor police going all over the country, and it seems to me, if you are going to have a single policeman on a motor bicycle giving evidence solely on his own account and on his own opinion that a man or woman has been driving dangerously, that is a very serious and a very dangerous thing. Clause 10 says: shall not be liable to be convicted of the offence solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that in the opinion of the witness the person charged was driving the vehicle at such greater speed. He himself admitted that it was a difficult thing to estimate speed. Consequently it was necessary to put in that two witnesses had to be found in a case of exceeding the speed limit. Clause 11 says that if any person drives a motor vehicle on the road at a speed dangerous to the public, without any corroborative evidence at all, he can be convicted and sent to prison. Not only that, but under Clauses 10 and 11, on the opinion of one witness alone he can be actually convicted of driving at a speed dangerous to the public having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and not only to the amount of traffic that is on the road but the traffic that might reasonably be expected to be there, and which is not there. In other words, a policeman on a motor bicycle might follow a car and, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, without any traffic on the road according to this Clause, he might get a conviction on his sole opinion as to the danger which he himself alleged without any possible corroborative evidence whatever. Is that the sort of thing we ought to put into the Bill? Two witnesses are required in a case where the speed is alleged to have exceeded 10, 15 or 20 miles or whatever is laid down in the Schedule.

It seems to me a most extraordinary thing In spite of having increased the penalty, in spite of the fact that it works satisfactorily in Scotland, in spite of the fact that you are to have motor policemen to prosecute people for driving at a speed that they consider dangerous to the public, the Minister will not agree to a very simple Amendment which could not do any harm, because if there is dangerous driving it requires corroborative evidence. He infers that he considers that it is right that a policeman, on his sole opinion, should be able to get a man convicted for having driven at a speed which he considers dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. The Amendment ought to be agreed to. We are not asking anything serious at all. If it has worked satisfactorily in Scotland, it is obvious that it would work satisfactorily in this country. It is a very serious matter if people are going to be convicted on the opinion of one witness.

Mr. A. HENDERSON, Junior

The last speaker has rather misunderstood the two Clauses with which we are dealing. Under Clause 10, the magistrate would have to decide merely the question of speed, and, in deciding that question, he would have the assistance of two witnesses. Those who have had to deal with questions of speed in running down cases know how easy it is for different witnesses to take different views as to speed. Under Clause 11, on the other hand, what the magistrate has to determine is not the question of speed but whether or not the accused is guilty of dangerous driving. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. Danger and speed."] If any person drives a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time or which might reasonably be expected. The magistrate has to decide whether that person is guilty of reckless or dangerous driving.

Sir W. BRASS

I think the hon. Member realises that in by-gone days people have been convicted of driving at a speed dangerous to the public merely in a police trap where a motor car has been timed over a certain distance. They have been convicted under this very Clause, which is in the old Act.

Mr. HENDERSON

It is also correct to say that in the past persons have been convicted of driving recklessly or dangerously on the evidence of one person. The hon. Member and his friends are seeking to change the law. So far as dangerous driving is concerned, under the present law it is sufficient to produce one witness. The mistake hon. Members are making is to imagine that evidence depends upon the number of witnesses. My hon. Friend below me seems to attach great importance to the evidence of an inexperienced policeman. Would the position be helped by calling two inexperienced policemen? Evidence does not depend on the number of witnesses but on the quality of the evidence. If the magistrate is satisfied that the evidence brought before him is sufficient to enable him to form an opinion as to whether or not a particular person has been guilty, that is all that is required, and he will be able to do that if evidence is only adduced by one individual. The reason why corroborative evidence is necessary in maternity cases is because it is obviously very difficult to prove the act or acts which justify a finding that a particular person is the father of a child. Apart altogether from their proposal to change the law, which has been in operation for a good many years, they are perturbed quite unnecessarily.

I quite agree that the police evidence may be the evidence of one policeman, but speed is only one element to be taken into consideration in determining whether or not an offence has been committed. If the magistrate comes to the conclusion that the police evidence is wrong on that point, and that the accused was travelling within the speed limit, it may yet be that he will come to the conclusion that, in all the circumstances of the case, he has been guilty of dangerous driving and, therefore, the question of speed on the evidence of one person is not of great importance in that regard. I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.

Major HILLS

We had a long discussion on this question in Committee, and I took a certain view which I do not see any reason to change. The hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Hall-Caine) is evidently a bit of a rebel in this respect, and, whatever may be the age of the policeman called to give evidence on charges under this Clause, he at any rate has the advantage of perpetual youth. He thinks there should be some relaxation, some extra concession given to motorists, and my hon. Friends above the Gangway made the same case. They are asking for a change in the law in view of changed circumstances. What are the changed circumstances? The Mover of the Amendment said that two new offences were created, reckless driving and careless driving. He overlooked the fact that one very important offence is abolished by the Bill, that of exceeding the speed limit, so they really undertake a pretty strong task when they say that, while all speed limits are abolished, the existing penalty should be lessened. I think it ought to be a matter for very careful consideration. The motorist ought not to be put into a privileged position. There seems to be some confusion in the minds of hon. Members as between the function of a witness and the function of a court. My hon. Friend, in his interesting and sincere speech, talked as though a conviction took place by the police constable, as though if in the opinion of the police constable a man was driving recklessly or carelessly, at once the man went to prison. All his case was based on that idea. When you talk about opinion, it is not the opinion of the policeman that matters but that of the magistrate who hears the evidence. It is he who decides. We all know, those of us who have had to consider human testimony—that frail and delicate thing—that in some cases we believe one witness and in other cases we would not believe 10. It is for the court to decide. It does not rest entirely on what the police constable may think or do.

5.0 p.m.

I do not see any reason to change. I believe the Minister has come to a wise decision. I have heard many complaints from motorists, and no doubt some of them are well founded, but I have never heard a complaint directed against the existence of a Clause which allows the conviction on the evidence of one single witness. If that was so when the law was more restrictive, I do not think it ought to be relaxed in this Bill where the law is being immensely relaxed in favour of the motorist. My hon. Friends cannot have it both ways. A great many of us are very doubtful about the abolition of the speed limit. I have changed round to supporting the removal of it largely on the persuasion of the Minister. We cannot do that and at the same time further relax the existing restrictions.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON

I appreciate that many hon. Members opposite attach great importance to this Amendment. I also know that some of my own hon. Friends are straining at the leash to destroy the arguments that have been advanced, but I think we are all anxious to conclude the final stages of this Bill. We are on Clause 11, and there are 122 Clauses. Probably the early Clauses may be more troublesome than the later ones. I am anxious to make progress and also to keep up my record in regard to avoiding the use of the Closure. If I do get driven to it from time to time to-day, let Members remember that I do it with sorrow in my heart. I am sorry, but I have not been persuaded by the very nicely put and persuasive arguments of hon. Members opposite. They have tried very hard, and the case has never been better put. But, honestly, I simply cannot see it. The interest in Scottish law which has developed among hon. Members is really extraordinary. Their admiration for Scottish law is marvellous upon this subject. I must look out some aspects of Scottish law which are harsher and bring them forward on the other side of the question. But what we have to consider is whether it is relevant; whether it is right or wrong; and not what Scotland does. The circumstances are not analogous. In Scotland, there is no appeal from the first court, while in England there is an appeal to quarter sessions. There is therefore a good deal of difference. It is perfectly true that Clause 10 does require a second witness to testify that a vehicle was or was not going beyond the stated speed. Clearly, that is a different element from whether a vehicle was or was not being dangerously driven.

The point has been urged time and time again in the course of these discussions that the House is being asked to authorise a conviction merely upon the opinion of a police constable. Hon. Members seem to visualise that the proceedings in Court will be something like this: The clerk will read out the charge; the magistrate will say to the policeman, "What is your evidence?"; the policeman will say, "Your worship, in my opinion so-and-so was driving dangerously and recklessly," which will conclude his evidence; the magistrate will then say to the defendant, "Is that so?"; and the defendant will certainly say "No," and then the magistrate will give him three months without the option. I have perhaps made it sound a little extreme, but that is the picture which is held up. In point of fact, the policeman will have to say, not merely that in his opinion a person was driving dangerously, but how he was driving dangerously, and what were the elements in his driving that constituted danger, and the circumstances, and so on. The method in which that man gives his evidence will influence the Court and so will the cross-examination of the witness. The evidence of the motorist and any witnesses that he may have will also influence the Court.

Sir W. BRASS

I would like to ask the Minister what he thinks would happen in a case in which one of his new mobile traffic officers with a speedometer was following a car which was going at 50 miles an hour along a road which he considered was dangerous. Would not that be sufficient evidence to convict the motorist?

Mr. MORRISON

It all depends upon the case and the speedometer, and so on. If the policeman had to drive at 50 miles an hour to keep up with the other man, there is prima facie evidence that the other man was doing something. Why should there be a panic among hon. Members opposite. I think the mobile police are going to be of great assistance to them to enable them to keep within the law. The case of my hon. and learned Friend was that it would be possible under this Amendment for per-

sons to be killed by a dangerous driver, and then, as the person was dead, he could not give evidence. Nobody saw the accident, and the only persons alive to tell the tale were the motorist, the policeman, and any other persons who happened to see it. Is it going to be said that merely because there is no corroborative evidence in that case, the motorist is going to escape conviction? If this Amendment be adopted, undoubtedly in a substantial number of cases where the motorist is clearly guilty of doing things that he ought not to do, he is going to escape, not because the police think he may be innocent or because, if he has been brought into Court, he may not be convicted, but because he will not be brought into Court. The Act of Parliament will forbid the case being brought up. That is risking a far too dangerous state of affairs.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY

In the case of a commercial car that is going at 35 or 40 miles per hour and where the police cannot get witnesses with regard to the speed, will it not be possible for them to transfer the case to one of dangerous driving, where only one witness is necessary?

Mr. MORRISON

It may also be a case of dangerous driving.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY

I am thinking of a case brought primarily because it was a question of speed.

Mr. MORRISON

I will discuss that point with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I am not the policeman in the dock at the moment. I think the House has fully discussed the matter, and I appeal to Members to come to a conclusion on the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 273.

Division No. 429.] AYES. [5.13 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Berry, Sir George Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Bird, Ernest Roy Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Albery, Irving James Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) Bracken, B. Christie, J. A.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Brass, Captain Sir William Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Atholl, Duchess of Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Colfox, Major William Philip
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Buckingham, Sir H. Colman, N. C. D.
Balniel, Lord Butler, R. A. Cranborne, Viscount
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Beaumont, M. W. Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Hore-Belisha, Leslie Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Hurd, Percy A. Ross, Major Ronald D.
Davies, Dr. Vernon Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Iveagh, Countess of Salmon, Major I.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Kindersley, Major G. M. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Eden, Captain Anthony King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Edmondson, Major A. J. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Elliot, Major Walter E. Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Skelton, A. N.
Everard, W. Lindsay Leighton, Major B. E. P. Smithers, Waldron
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Llewellin, Major J. J. Somerset, Thomas
Ferguson, Sir John Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Fermoy, Lord Lymington, Viscount Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Fielden, E. B. MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Margesson, Captain H. D. Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Ganzoni, Sir John Marjoribanks, E. C. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Meller, R. J. Thomson, Sir F.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Tinne, J. A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Train, J.
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Wells, Sydney R.
Groves, Thomas E. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Moirhead, A. J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Gunston, Captain D. W. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Withers, Sir John James
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Womersley, W. J.
Hamilton, Sir George (Iltord) O'Connor, T. J. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Hanbury, C. Peake, Captain Osbert Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Penny, Sir George Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Haslam, Henry C. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Pownall, Sir Assheton Captain Sir George Bowyer and
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Ramsbotham, H. Captain Wallace.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Rawson, Sir Cooper
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Cocks, Frederick Seymour. Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Compton, Joseph Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Cove, William G. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Cowan, D. M. Harbord, A.
Alpass, J. H. Daggar, George Hardie, George D.
Ammon, Charles George Dallas, George Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Arnott, John Dalton, Hugh Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Attlee, Clement Richard Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Ayles, Walter Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Day, Harry Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Denman, Hon. R. D. Herriotts, J.
Barnes, Alfred John Dickson, T. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Barr, James Dudgeon, Major C. R. Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Batey, Joseph Dukes, C. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Bellamy, Albert Duncan, Charles Hoffman, P. C.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Ede, James Chuter Hollins, A.
Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.) Edmunds, J. E. Hopkin, Daniel
Bennett, William (Battorsea, South) Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Horrabin, J. F.
Benson, G. Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Bentham, Dr. Ethel Egan, W. H. Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Elmley, Viscount Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Blindell, James Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) Isaacs, George
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Foot, Isaac Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Forgan, Dr. Robert John, William (Rhondda, West)
Broad, Francis Alfred Galbraith, J. F. W. Johnston, Thomas
Brockway, A. Fenner Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Bromfield, William Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Brooke, W. George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Brothers, M. Gibbins, Joseph Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Gill, T. H. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Buchanan, G. Glassey, A. E. Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Burgess, F. G. Gossling, A. G. Kelly, W. T.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) Gould, F. Kennedy, Thomas
Cameron, A. G. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Cape, Thomas Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Kinley, J.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Gray, Milner Knight, Holford
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Lang, Gordon
Charleton, H. C. Grenfell, D. H. (Glamorgan) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Chater, Daniel Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Lathan, G.
Church, Major A. G. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Law, Albert (Bolton)
Clarke, J. S. Grundy, Thomas W. Law, A. (Rosendale)
Cluse, W. S. Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Lawrence, Susan
Lawton, John James Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Leach, W. Owen, H. F. (Hereford) Snell, Harry
Lee, Frank (Darby, N. E.) Palin, John Henry Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Paling, Wlifrid Sorensen, R.
Lewis, T. (Southampton) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Stamford, Thomas W.
Lindley, Fred W. Perry, S. F. Stephen, Campbell
Lloyd, C. Ellis Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Logan, David Gilbert Phillips, Dr. Marion Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Longbottom, A. W. Picton-Turbervill, Edith Strauss, G. R.
Longden, F. Pole, Major D. G. Sullivan, J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Potts, John S. Sutton, J. E.
McElwee, A. Price, M. P. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
McEntee, V. L. Pybus, Percy John Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
McKinlay, A. Quibell, D. J. K. Thurtle, Ernest
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Tinker, John Joseph
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Raynes, W. R. Toole, Joseph
McShane, John James Richards, R. Tout, W. J.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Townend, A. E.
Mansfield, W. Ritson, J. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
March, S. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) Vaughan, D. J.
Marcus, M. Romeril, H. G. Viant, S. P.
Markham, S. F. Rosbotham, D. S. T. Walkden, A. G.
Marley, J. Rowson, Guy Walker, J.
Marshall, Fred Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) Wallace, H. W.
Mathers, George Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Matters, L. W. Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) Watkins, F. C.
Maxtor, James Sanders, W. S. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Melville, Sir James Sandham, E. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Messer, Fred Sawyer, G. F. Wellock, Wilfred
Middleton, G. Scott, James Welsh, James (Paisley)
Millar, J. D. Scurr, John Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Mills, J. E. Sexton, James West, F. R.
Milner, Major J. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Westwood, Joseph
Montague, Frederick Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. Sherwood, G. H. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Morley, Ralph Shield, George William Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Shillaker, J. F. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Shinwell, E. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Mort, D. L. Simmons, C. J. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Moses, J. J. H. Sinkinson, George Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Sitch, Charles H. Wise, E. F.
Muggeridge, H. T. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Murnin, Hugh Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
Nathan, Major H. L. Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) Smith, Rennie (Penistone) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Noel Baker, P. J. Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Mr. Hayes and Mr. William
Whiteley.