Paul v Dujon

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: St.Bernard, J.A.,Lewis, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 13 March 1972
• Neutral Citation: LC 1972 CA 7
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1972
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 13 March 1972

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J., Lewis J.A., Bernard, J.A.

Magistrate's Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1972

Paul

and

Dujon

P. Husbands, for appellant.

K. Monplaisir, for respondent.

Practice and procedure - Magistrate's Court — Magistrate made no determination as to whether appellant was driving on a public or private road — Appeal allowed.

St.Bernard, J.A.

1 The respondent was charged with driving motor vehicle No. 1909 along the Ti Rocher Road on the 24th July, 1971, without there being in force in relation to the user of that vehicle a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks contrary to section 3 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, chapter 135 of the Revised Laws of St. Lucia. The matter came up for hearing on the 29th November, 1971 and the charge was dismissed by the magistrate.

2 The defence of the respondent was that he was not driving on the Ti Rocher Road. He stated he was driving on a private road on his father's premises. He was a mechanic and after having repaired the car he was testing the brakes. The magistrate made no finding on this question of fact which was the real issue in the case. She stated in her reasons for decision that she interpreted the words “any person to use, or to cause or permit any other person to use “in the section as referring to one and the same person, namely the owner of the vehicle. On the evidence the respondent was shown not to be the owner and therefore the charge was dismissed. In my view the magistrate was clearly in error and the section applies to any person using a vehicle on a public road whether such person is the owner of the vehicle or not. The magistrate therefore, should have determined the question of fact whether or not the respondent was driving on a public road. I would allow the appeal and remit the case to the District Court to be tried by another magistrate and to determine whether or not the respondent was driving the vehicle along the Ti Rocher road or on his father's premises.

Lewis, C.J.

3 I agree that this appeal should be allowed and the case remitted to the District Court to be tried by another magistrate. By consent, no order as to costs.

CECIL LEWIS, J.A.: I agree.