Smith v Commissioner of Police

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Douglas, C.J.,Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 31 May 1968
• Docket Number: No. 79 of 1967
• Date: 31 May 1968

Divisional Court

Douglas, C.J.; Williams, J.

No. 79 of 1967

Smith

and

Commissioner of Police

Appearances:

The appellant in person.

Mr. C.O. Tulloch, Senior Crown Counsel for the respondent.

Insurance - Motor vehicle — Charge of using uninsured vehicle — Driver previously had learner's permit — Whether insurer liable — Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Act, 1937, s. 28(2)(a)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 The appellant was charged before a magistrate at District “A” with two traffic offences, driving his motor cycle on May 3rd, 1967 on a road without being the holder of an appropriate driving licence and using his motor cycle on the said day on a public road when there was no third party insurance in force in respect of the user of the vehicle. He pleaded not guilty to these charges. The magistrate found him guilty on both of them. On the former charge the appellant was convicted, reprimanded and discharged. On the latter charge he was fined one hundred dollars payable in one month with the alternative of four months imprisonment and was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for one year.

2 He has appealed to this court against both convictions. On his application, evidence which was not led at the hearing before the magistrate, was permitted to be given on the hearing of the appeal. The appellant contended that on the date when the offences were alleged to have been committed, he had a valid permit authorising him to learn to ride the vehicle in question. However, he could not produce this permit. He was given leave to call Douglas Agard, the police corporal responsible for keeping records of permits issued. Agard gave evidence that the appellant had a valid learner's permit for the periods January 11th to April 10th, 1967 and May 9th to August 8th, 1967. He did not have any such permit in the period between April 10th and May 9th. It was during this period that the breach was alleged. There is, therefore, nothing in the appeal against his conviction for driving his motor cycle on a road without being the holder of an appropriate driving licence.

3 As far as the other appeal is concerned, this court permitted evidence to be given by Gordon Browne, representative of the insurance company with which the appellant was insured. This witness gave evidence that on the relevant date, May 3rd, 1967 there was a third party insurance in force in respect of the appellant's motor cycle, but drew attention to a proviso in the policy to this effect:

“Provided that the person driving is permitted in accordance with the licensing or other laws or regulations to drive a motor vehicle or has been so permitted and is not disqualified by the operation of any enactment or order of the court from driving a motor vehicle.”

4 The question to be decided is this — did this clause operate to remove the third party coverage from the vehicle...