Bayne v Commissioner of Police

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Douglas, C.J.,Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 15 February 1974
• Docket Number: No. 62 of 1970
• Date: 15 February 1974

Divisional Court

Douglas, C.J.; Williams, J.

No. 62 of 1970

Bayne

and

Commissioner of Police

Appearances:

W.H.A. Hanschell, Q.C., for the appellant.

C. Payne for the Crown.

Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction — Traffic Offence.

Facts: The appellant was convicted of failing to stop after an accident under S.53 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act 1937 — The issue was whether the conviction could stand.

Held: There was much evidence to support the conviction.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 The Appellant was convicted by a Magistrate for an offence under Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act, 1937, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) namely for failing to stop when an accident occurred.

2 The evidence at the trial disclosed that Mr. Hilary Blenman was driving his car along Worthing Road in the direction of Bridgetown when it was struck by a car -X.240 — which was reversing out of Crystal Waters Gap into the main road. Mr. Blenrnan got out of his car and went into Crystal Waters Gap where he saw the car X.240 parked among other cars and showing damage to the rear lights and rear bumper. There was no sign then of the driver. Mr. Blenman telephoned for the police and after doing so he saw the appellant at the scene. Later he saw the appellant drive off in X.240.

3 Still later that evening the appellant appeared at the Worthing Police Station where Sgt. Rouse asked him if he was the driver of the car X.240 at 6.40 p.m. that evening when it was involved in an accident with Mr. Blenman's car. The appellant admitted that he was and gave an account of how the accident happened.

4 In his defence, the appellant said that he felt a jolt when he was reversing but did not realise what the jolt was. He thought that it was another car which had struck his car, but as he says “as that jolt was not serious I did not take any further notice.”

5 It is contended, inter alia, that the Magistrate misdirected himself in law as to the application of Section 53 of the Act which provides –

“A person riding, driving or in charge of any vehicle of any description shall, if an accident occurs to any traffic owing to the presence of such vehicle on the road, stop and, if required, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner of such vehicle and if any person knowingly acts in contravention of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.”

6 Counsel cites Harding v. Price [1948] 1 All E.R. 283. In that case the appellant was the driver of a vehicle known as a mechanical horse to which a large trailer was attached. The trailer collided in some way with a stationary car, probably by brushing against it and the justices found that the reason the appellant did not report the...