XN000022-1982-12-22 — Page 12

10

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1982

TRIBUTE TO LEGCO UNOFFICIALS FOR

THOROUGHLY EXAMINING ROAD TRAFFIC BILL

****

THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT, THE HON ALAN SCOTT TODAY (WEDNESDAY) PAID TRIBUTE TO UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL FOR THE THOROUGHNESS WITH WHICH THEY HAD EXAMINED THE PROPOSALS EMBODIED IN THE ROAD TRAFFIC BILL 1982.

SPEAKING IN THE COUNCIL, MR SCOTT ASSURED MEMBERS THAT THE PLETHORA OF AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL DID NOT MEAN THAT THE BILL WAS UNTIMELY OR THAT ITS PRINCIPLES HAD NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY WELL THOUGHT OUT BEFORE INTRODUCTION INTO THE COUNCIL.

HE SAID UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS HAD EXPRESSED PARTICULAR CONCERN ABOUT THE LEVEL OF PENALTIES FOR RECKLESS DRIVING AND AMENDMENTS WOULD BE INTRODUCED TO REDUCE THIS LEVEL SIGNIFICANTLY.

HE SAID THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CONCEPT OF RECKLESS DRIVING HAD GIVEN RISE TO OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT ITS DEFINITION, ITS TRANSLATION INTO CHINESE, AND HOW IT WOULD BE INTERPRETED IN PRACTICE.

MR SCOTT SAID THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITION OF RECKLESS DRIVING IN THE BILL HAD BEEN TAKEN BY SOME COMMENTATORS TO MEAN THAT THE TERM WAS NOT CAPABLE OF PRECISE INTERPRETATION.

*THIS IS NOT SO. THE TERM 'RECKLESS DRIVING' HAS BEEN USED FOR ALMOST A DECADE IN U.K. ROAD TRAFFIC LEGISLATION, AND ITS INTERPRETATION HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR IN CASE LAW, HE SAID.

HE POINTED OUT THAT IN 1981 IN THE APPEAL CASE OF THE QUEEN VERSUS LAWRENCE, THE HOUSE LORDS STATED IN SPECIFIC TERMS WHAT MUST BE PROVED IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH WHETHER A PARTICULAR PIECE OF DRIVING WAS RECKLESS. THE LAW LORDS CONSIDERED THAT THE STANDARD OF THE ORDINARY PRUDENT MOTORIST SHOULD BE APPLIED AND THEY HELD THAT IT MUST BE PROVED:

* FIRST, THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS IN FACT DRIVING THE VEHICLE IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO CREATE AN OBVIOUS AND SERIOUS RISK OF CAUSING PHYSICAL INJURY TO SOME OTHER PERSON WHO MIGHT HAPPEN TO BE USING THE ROAD OR OF DOING SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY, AND

*

SECOND, THAT IN DRIVING IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE DEFENDANT DID SO WITHOUT HAVING GIVEN ANY THOUGHT TO THE POSSIBILITY OF THERE BEING ANY SUCH RISK, OR HAVING RECOGNISED THAT THERE WAS SOME RISK INVOLVED, HAD NONETHELESS GONE ON TO TAKE IT.

/MR SCOTT