Austin v Commissioner of Police

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Hanschell, J.,Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 31 July 1970
• Date: 31 July 1970

Divisional Court

Hanschell, J.; Williams, J.

Austin

and

Commissioner of Police

Appearances:

Mr. E. Mottley for the appellant.

Mr. C. Payne for the respondent.

Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction — Traffic Offence.

Facts: The appellant was convicted by a magistrate of an offence under s. 67(1) of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act, 1937 — The magistrate found that on the following day the appellant was required by a police constable in uniform to give information as to the identity of the person who was driving the car and he failed to do so — Whether the correct procedure for obtaining such information had been observed.

Held: That the proper manner of requesting information under the section is by a formal notice specifying the particular provision under which the information is being requested and alleging that an offence under the Act has been committed — Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 The appellant was convicted by the magistrate of District “A” of an offence under s. 67(1) of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act 1937, No. 16. The substance of the charge was that he was the owner of the motor car M. 8149, that someone had driven this car on June 11th, 1969, at Black Rock Road, St. Michael, without due care and attention, that on the following day he, the appellant, was required by a police constable in uniform to give information as to the identity of the person, and that he failed to do so. He was fined $50 payable in 14 days with the alternative of 14 days' imprisonment.

2 The short point taken on this appeal is that before there can be a conviction for such an offence, there must be evidence that a proper basis had been established for the requisition of the information — that in the present case, before the appellant could properly have been convicted, there should have been evidence that it had been brought to his knowledge that an offence under the Act or the Regulations had been committed.

3 Counsel relied on Pulton v. Leader (1) in which not only was the owner of the vehicle informed that it was being alleged that an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1930 had been committed, but the notice requesting the information clearly indicated to him that the information was being requested pursuant to s. 113(3) of the Act. Lord Goddard said ( [1949] 2 All E.R. at p. 748):

“Before the magistrate the appellant claimed the right, before complying with the requirements of the Act to decide for himself whether or not an offence had been committed. That, however, is not provided for by the statute which only requires the police to...