The only point I am raising about the section is that the section is to a large extent covered in the ordinary law. Dangerous driving, driving without due consideration, driving while drunk—these offences already exist in the Road Traffic Act. Driving while intoxicated is driving while drunk and, of course, that includes being under the influence of a drug or narcotic. There is already provision in the ordinary law for paragraph (a). Frequently in the courts there are charges of causing bodily injury to a person by furious driving. That is in an old Act. All those offences are in fact in existence at the moment. The soldier can be charged under the Road Traffic Act with (b) and (c) and he can be charged under an old Carriage Act—I am not altogether sure of the name of it—with the offences set out in paragraph (a).
SECTION 158.
Could we cut short the discussion on this section by referring back to Sections 154 and 155 ? We agreed to the principle of the section. It is necessary to cover it. Would the Minister through his advisers ensure that there is a consistency between this and the existing law in the Road Traffic Act? You are dealing with a modern Act and the words should be liftable, word for word. The thing to avoid is objectionable paraphrasing or variation of the words in defining the same crime. If the Minister would have that matter checked, I see no objection to the section.
We will check that.
In one District Court that I go to, when a man is charged with being drunk under the Road Traffic Act, the justice now and again, in what he considers a proper case, puts the charge down under this old Carriage Act and that does not oblige him to suspend the man's driving licence. The offences in those three paragraphs are covered already in legislation.