Williams v Commissioner of Police

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Douglas, C.J.,Browne, J.
• Judgment Date: 14 July 1969
• Neutral Citation: BB 1969 HC 16
• Court: High Court (Barbados)
• Date: 14 July 1969

Divisional Court

Douglas, C.J.; Browne, J..

Williams

and

Commissioner of Police

Road traffic - Identification mark issued to dealer in motor vehicles for identification purposes — Charge of using mark for purpose not prescribed — Onus of proof — Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act, 1937.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 The appellant has appealed against the decision of the magistrate of District “A” who convicted him on a charge that, being a driver of a motor vehicle, to wit, motor car bearing the identification marks M0090 issued to a dealer in motor vehicles under the authority of s. 8(4) of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act, 1937, No. 16, he unlawfully did use the said motor vehicle on St. Lawrence Road, a road, for the purposes other than specified in s. 8(4), contrary to s. 8(5) of the said Act.

2 The evidence for the prosecution disclosed that on September 10, 1967, P.C. Walter Greene at about 2.50 a.m. went to the scene of an accident at St. Lawrence Road, Christ Church, where he saw two cars M551 and M0090. The appellant was the driver of the car on which was displayed the number M0090, an identification mark of the kind issued to importers or dealers of motor vehicles for use on trial by an intended purchaser of a motor vehicle. The appellant told P.C. Greene that he had taken the car out on trial the previous day and that he was a salesman for Motor Services, Ltd.; that when he got back to the office, the garage was closed and he was taking the car to his home in St. Philip when the accident took place; and that he had been out to demonstrate the car to one Mr. John Wise of Fitz Village, St. James. P.C. Greene some days later, checked the registration book at the firm of Withnall and Co. Ltd. where the appellant was employed at the material time, and found that the number M0090 was registered from September 9, 1967 at 12 noon. The appellant made an unsworn statement from the dock and said this: he had taken the car M0090 from the firm of Withnall and Co. Ltd. on Saturday, September 9, 1967, to a Mr. Wise in St. James; Mr. Wise tried out the car and he returned to the home of Mr. Wise around 8.00 p.m. the same night; he had dinner with Mr. Wise and left Mr. Wise's home sometime after 1.00 a.m. on the Sunday morning; he was on his way to his home in St. Philip driving the car when it was involved in an accident; it was his job to sell cars and he was paid for the number of cars he sold and he had to demonstrate when a customer wanted him to demonstrate.

3 Two grounds of appeal have been raised on behalf of the appellant, the first that the decision was against the weight of the evidence and the second that the magistrate misdirected himself in law.

4 Counsel for the appellant argued both grounds, and submitted that the magistrate had misdirected himself in law as to the onus of proof and had not drawn a distinction between the burden of proof and the burden of adducing evidence. He submitted that once it was shown in evidence that the identification marks displayed on the vehicle were lawfully obtained under s. 8(4) of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act, 1937, No. 16, then the onus of proof was on the prosecution to show unlawful user by the appellant, that is, user for a purpose other than on the trial of the vehicle by an intended purchaser. He further submitted that s. 8(6) of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act, 1937, No. 16 supported his argument since by that section the law required the importer or dealer on every occasion on which a vehicle with identification marks was being used to keep a record of the name and address of the person driving the vehicle, and such record was open to inspection by any member of the Police Force who could satisfy himself as to whether the person using the vehicle was authorised to do so or not.

5 Counsel for...