R v Lewis (Anthony)

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: HARRISON, P.
• Judgment Date: 16 February 2006
• Neutral Citation: JM 2006 CA 7
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2006] 2 JJC 1603
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 16 February 2006

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BEFORE:

THE HON. MR. JUSTICE HARRISON, P THE HON. MR. JUSTICE COOKE, J.A THE HON. MRS. JUSTICE HARRIS, J.A. (AG.)

R

v

ANTHONY LEWIS

Debayo A. Adedipe for Defendant

David Fraser, Snr. Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (Ag.) & Miss Natalie Brooks, Asst. Crown Counsel for the Crown

CRIMINAL LAW - Road Traffic - Careless driving

HARRISON, P

1 This is a case stated for the opinion of the Court of Appeal under the provisions of section 49 of the Justices of the Peace (Appeals) Act by Her Honour Mrs. Marva McDonald-Bishop, Resident Magistrate for the parish of Manchester, exercising summary jurisdiction in the Court of Petty Sessions,

2 The learned Resident Magistrate stated the following case:

"Mr. Anthony Lewis (the defendant) was issued a traffic ticket on the 26 ^th February, 2005 for the offence of careless driving, in that, on the said day he drove from a compound onto Caledonia Road, Manchester, into the path of a motor car causing a collision.

By this ticket, he was required to attend court at Mandeville on 14 ^th April, 2005. No option was given to him to pay a prescribed penalty at the tax office as such a course is not opened (sic) to an offender charged for the offence of careless driving. The defendant signed the ticket in acknowledgement of receipt of it as prescribed and duly appeared before the court on the said day specified for his appearance.

He was unrepresented and gave an informal plea of not guilty when he appeared in court on the 14 ^th April as aforesaid. The matter was adjourned for August 11, 2005. The defendant was, accordingly, bound over to appear on that date.

On August 11, 2005, the defendant appeared and so did Mr. Debayo Adedipe, of counsel, appearing on the defendant's behalf for the first time. Mr. Adedipe proceeded to make a preliminary objection indicating that the appearance of the defendant was under protest and that his presence did not mean that he was surrendering to the jurisdiction of the court.

The objection of counsel was done orally but was later reduced into writing at the request of the court and filed on September 12, 2005 for these purposes."

3 She then recited the preliminary objection submitted by counsel for the defendant:

• "i) The defendant ought to be discharged for the offence as charged as there is no charge and no proceedings effectively commenced against him. All (sic) is on the records is a ticket and careless driving is not an offence in respect of which a ticket can be issued.

• ii) The commencement of a prosecution in Petty Sessions is by the laying of an information upon which either a summons or a warrant is issued, according to the circumstances, or by arrest and charge, followed by the laying of an information and production of the accused in court.

• iii) The traffic ticket has been incorporated as a means of commencing prosecution by virtue of section 116 of the Road Traffic Act (Appendix 2) and section 2 (2) of the Justices of the Peace Jurisdiction Act (Appendix 3). Careless driving is not one of the offences specified in section 116 for which a traffic ticket may be given. The ticket issued in this case cannot be construed as information or as an information and a summons.

• iv) There is no laying of an information in this case as an information is actually laid by a person going before a Justice of the Peace and stating the substance of the allegation against the person to be charged. The mere delivery of a ticket or a batch of tickets to the office of the Clerk of Courts is not and cannot be treated as the laying of an information.

• v) When the defendant attended court on April 14, 2005, no information had been laid against him. There was really no charge and no prosecution had been commenced. The position has not changed when he appeared in Court on August 11, 2005.

• vi) To lay an information against the defendant now would be an exercise in futility. It is accepted that the limitation period for laying an information in such a case as this is six months. However, section 38 of the Road Traffic Act (Appendix 4) expressly provides that a person shall not be convicted of careless driving unless certain conditions, as to warning him of prosecution, are satisfied. In this regard, the ticket is neither a summons nor a warning and is really of no effect. For these reasons, an information cannot now be laid charging him for careless driving if it is accepted that the ticket is of no effect."

4 The learned Resident Magistrate reserved her ruling and transmitted the case for the ruling of this Court on a matter of law.

5 The questions for the opinion of the Court of Appeal are as follows:

• (1) Whether upon an examination of the traffic ticket and upon a proper construction of section 116 of the Road Traffic Act, the traffic ticket is intended to serve only as a fixed penalty notice and, therefore, as an information and summons pursuant to section 2(2) of the Justices of the Peace Jurisdiction Act only in relation to those offences falling with section 116.

• (2) Whether a charge of careless driving can properly be commenced by the issuance of a traffic ticket.

• (3) Whether the mere delivery of the traffic ticket to the courts office by the police constitutes 'the laying of an information' or the 'making of a complaint' for the purposes of a prosecution.

• (4) In considering the forgoing questions, the Honourable Court is asked to pay regard to the following subsidiary questions.

  • a) Whether sections 2(1) (Appendix 3) and 9 (Appendix 5) of the Justice of the Peace Jurisdiction Act are applicable to...