R v Pottinger

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: MacGregor, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 08 February 1960
• Neutral Citation: JM 1960 CA 2
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 08 February 1960

Court of Appeal

MacGregor, C.J.; Cools-Lartigue, J.A.; Phillips, J.A.

R.

and

Pottinger

Appearances:

Parkinson for the appellant.

Parnell for the Crown.

Insurance - Motor vehicle — Third — party risk — Failure to produce certificate of insurance after demand by a constable — Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third — Party Risks) Law, Cap.257, s.8(1).

MacGregor, C.J.

1 This appellant was convicted by one of the resident magistrates, Kingston, on a charge that she, being the driver of a certain motor vehicle, did fail to produce her insurance certificate for the motor vehicle on being required so to do by a constable.

2 The section under which the charge was laid is s.8 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third-Party Risks) Law, Cap.257 [J.]. The material portion reads:

“Any person driving a motor vehicle on a road shall, on being required by a constable, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce his certificate, and if he fails to do so shall be guilty of an offence…”

3 A proviso permits the certificate to be produced within five days at a police station. It was admitted that the appellant did not produce it at a police station within five days, so the proviso did not affect the issue.

4 By subsection (4) “produce his certificate” means produce for examination the relevant certificate of insurance or some other evidence to show that the vehicle was not being driven without there being in force a policy of insurance in respect of third-party risks.

5 The only witness for the prosecution was Acting Corporal Joseph Lewis who stated that on June 14th, 1959, he was at the Palisadoes Airport and saw the appellant drive a motor car along the Palisadoes Road into the Airport. The appellant was subsequently prosecuted for dangerous driving. It appears therefore, although he did not say so, that Corporal Lewis went to her to make enquiries with a view to prosecution for that charge. He was unable to remember the sequence of questions that he asked her, but he did ask if she was a licensed driver, to which she replied that she was; to produce the licence, to which she said that she hadn't got it on her and that she “had five days to produce it, so what?”; to produce her Insurance Certificate for the car, to which she said she didn't have it with her; where would she produce it? To which she replied, at Vineyard Town police station. She was then told to produce it there within five days. Corporal Lewis did not ask her name and address, as he says he did not have time; nor did he examine the licence disc on the car. He explained that this incident occurred at 4:10 p.m.; that he had been on duty from 8 a.m.; that the vehicle to transport him to his police station had arrived, so he asked Acting Corporal McKenzie to obtain her name and address for him, and that he questioned the appellant for only three minutes. He also stated that Acting Corporal McKenzie was present and heard him speak to the appellant.

6 The appellant denied that she had driven the car at all. Supported by Mr.Samuel Reid, a justice of the peace, she said that she had been driven in Reid's car by him from Mountain View Avenue where he had picked her up. Reid and the other passengers left the car at the Airport, and the appellant moved across the seat of the car to look in the rear-view mirror to fix her hair. The appellant denied that at any time Acting Corporal Lewis spoke to her. She admitted that Acting Corporal McKenzie enquired of her who drove and that she replied rudely to him.

7 The appellant was prosecuted for various offences and was acquitted. These were dangerous driving, disorderly conduct and assaulting a constable. It seems clearthat the facts upon which the last two charges were based arose out of incidents which took place when Acting Corporal McKenzie was making his enquiries, and, if Acting Corporal Lewis hadoriginally been present, after he left. We are not concerned with these facts. But Acting Corporal Lewis gave evidence at the trial of the charges of dangerous driving, and at the trial of the instant case he was cross-examined about the evidence he gave on that occasion. Counsel hada certified copy of the evidence given by Lewis at the earlier trial, and at the close of his cross-examination of Lewis sought to tender the certified copy. The resident magistrate rejected the evidence and complaint is made that the rejection was improper.

8 Section 17 of the Evidence Law, Cap.118 [J.], which is similar to s.4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1865 [U.K.], provides:

“If a witness, upon cross-examination as to a former statement made by him relative to the subject-matter of the cause, and inconsistent with his present testimony, does not distinctly admit that he has...