On Monday, August 27th, 1917, at the Luton Divisional Court, the remarkable case in which it was claimed that a soldier riding a motorcycle on duty need not show his military permit was satisfactorily concluded after having been twice adjourned. The defendant was Sgt Guest, of the Royal Engineers, Houghton Regis, and he was summoned for not producing his licence when demanded by Special Constable Elvey at Leagrave on July 15th.

The case had been adjourned owing to defendant contending that an acting adjutant at the camp had stated he need not show his permit, whereas Supt Panter had brought other evidence from the camp to the contrary effect. The Clerk had been asked to write to Col Leafe (Commanding) on the matter. The correspondence was handed in.

The Clerk wrote to Col Leafe stating that defendant throughout the proceedings treated the court with an obvious lack of courtesy, and stated that military orders forbade any motorcyclist on duty to produce his military authority to any but military police.

The justices considered that this statement should be investigated, as it was clear if such orders existed a soldier might easily escape his civil liabilities by stating that he had an authority where, as a matter of fact, he might have had nothing of the kind. The case was therefore adjourned.

The Superintendent of the Police was instructed to lay the facts before the military authorities at Houghton Depot, and to request that some official statement be made as to the truth or otherwise of Sgt Guest's statement.

At the adjourned hearing the Superintendent reported that he had, since the previous court, interviewed Col Danter. He also produced a communication from the Adjutant to the effect that military motorcyclists should produce their authority to the civilian police when requested to do so. The Superintendent reported that both Col Danter and Capt How had expressed similar views.

The attitude of the defendant towards the Bench was again distinctly discourteous, and upon being asked by the Bench what he had to say on the Superintendent's report and the Adjutant's observations, defendant replied that the Adjutant had nothing whatever to do with, and no authority over, the motorcyclists at Houghton.

Sgt Guest then produced a document purporting to be signed on behalf of, but not by, the officer commanding the motorcyclists, which in some measure was in conflict with what the Superintendent had reported, and also with the Adjutant's observations. The justices again adjourned the case and directed the Clerk (Mr A. F. Barnard) to write to Col Leafe and lay the facts before him in the hope that he or someone deputed by him might be able to attend the adjourned hearing and offer the magistrates some assurance that the attitude adopted on this and several previous occasions by men belonging to the motorcyclists' section of the depot at Houghton Regis would be discouraged by those responsible at the Depot, and that the men would be given to understand that, generally speaking, they were as much amenable to civil law as any person not in uniform.

A very courteous letter was received from Col Leafe in which he said that, as regards the licence, he thought there had been some confusion between a civil licence and a military authority to ride a motorcycle. Sgt Guest was asked for his licence but said that he had not one, which was technically true, but at the same time he had with him his military authority. He thought that if he had produced that no further action would have been required.

Guest was entirely under a wrong impression in stating that it was not his duty to produce his authority when called upon by the civil authority. To make that matter quite clear in the future a depot order had since been issued on the subject.

Col Danter and Lieut Howard appeared in court, and the latter explained that the mistake might be due to an incident three months ago when a special constable stopped one of the men. He not only asked for the licence but for the man's military orders. That was a very different thing, and the soldier got into trouble for producing them. Strict orders were issued to the men not to produce their orders to civil authorities. Probably Guest was under the impression he need not show his military licence.

Guest went to France early in the war and was shot through the head while leading his men. He was invalided out of the Army, but joined the Royal Engineers without disclosing his previous service. Afterwards he was recommended for a commission and sent to train for it, but his physical condition prevented this taking place.

Quite possibly, from the effect of the wounds in the head, Guest might have got a little excited. Possibly he lost his head when asked for his military authority. But the matter was now clear.

The Clerk said the main trouble was due to defendant's attitude with the Bench. Lieut Howard offered an apology on behalf of Col Leafe and defendant.

Supt Panter said he had no knowledge of any special constable asking a soldier for his military orders, and he objected to that statement.

The Chairman (Mr George Warren) said that Col Leafe's letter was quite satisfactory. The Bench had been anxious to know how they stood. The delay in the case was the defendant's fault. They were only too anxious to continue to work on amicable terms with the camp.

Defendant was ordered to pay £1 costs.

[The Luton News: Thursday, August 30th, 1917]