HC Deb 28 February 1935 vol 298 cc1275-7
11. Mr. WEST

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the prosecution of Mr. Joseph Cooper at Otley on the 26th of November for driving a motor van without clue care, and fatally injuring a cyclist who was using both a reflector and white enamelled mud-guards; whether he is aware that, despite police evidence of negligence and driving without a licence, only fines totalling 30s. 6d. were imposed; and whether, in view of the repeated occurrence of such cases, he will consider the desirability of increasing the penalties for that class of offence?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour)

My attention had already been drawn to this case and I have obtained particulars. After hearing the evidence the magistrates decided that they would not be justified in recording a conviction against Mr. Cooper for driving without due care and attention and they dismissed this charge on payment by him of the costs of the proceedings. I have no reason to think that the powers of the courts are inadequate to deal with such offences. The manner in which these powers are exercised is a matter for the court concerned, having regard to the circumstances of the individual ease before them.

Mr. WEST

Does not the Home Secretary realise that more than 20 cyclists are being killed per week in Great Britain, and that a large number of these deaths are caused by a minority of motor speed merchants who callously drive to the danger of these people; and does the right hon. Gentleman consider that in this case, where speed has been proved, a fine is adequate punishment for killing a cyclist?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT

In view of the fact that there was the imposition of a fine in the form of costs, how could the magistrates have considered there was innocence in this matter? If the matter justified the imposition of a fine, how could such a fine be considered adequate?

Sir J. GILMOUR

The attention of magistrates has been drawn to the necessity of dealing with this kind of case effectively, and we have circularised them on two occasions. I am not prepared at the moment to take further action in that regard, and I think the kind of questions we have had to-day may call their attention to this matter.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the time is now ripe when lay magistrates should be legally guided and in some way educated to administer the law?

12. Mr. WEST

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a case where the Ealing magistrates bound over for two years and disqualified from driving for five years a motorist who had borrowed a car without permission and without a licence, and killed a cyclist; whether he is aware that negligence was proved; and whether, in view of the frequency of such occurrences, he will consider taking steps to ensure that imprisonment follows in all such cases?

Sir J. GILMOUR

I have made enquiries and am informed that the defendant in this case was only 17 years old and that in view of his youth and good character and the fact that he was in custody for 14 days on remand, the justices thought it inadvisable to pass a sentence of imprisonment. In cases of this kind disqualification is often the most effective penalty and the justices decided to disqualify this defendant from driving for a period of five years. It is of great importance that when serious road traffic offences are proved, adequately deterrent measures shall be taken by the courts, but I could not agree to any amendment of the law which would deprive the courts of their discretion to impose penalties appropriate to the circumstances of individual cases.

Mr. WEST

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider, in view of the fact that there is case after case of these innocent people being killed owing to the negligence of some other person, that there ought to be, not a fine, but imprisonment in every case?

Commander MARSDEN

Does not my right lion. Friend think that this and similar cases prove that some other offence should be laid down by the law so that where the killing of some person is involved there should be a greater penalty than the law now provides?