Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Magistrates Court of Fiji |
IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
Traffic Case No 192/2012
STATE
V
INOKE ROKOTUINAMATA
For the Prosecution : Sgt. Jitendra, Police Prosecutor.
For the Accused : Ms. Malimali.
SENTENCE
Count #01
Count # 02
Count # 3
"no person shall use, or cause or permit any other person to use, a motor vehicle unless there is in force in relation to the use of that motor vehicle by such person or other person, as the case may be such policy of insurance in respect of the third party risks as complies with the provisions of this Act."
Section 4(2) states that:
"Any person acting in contravention of this section is guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $400 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both such fine and imprisonment and a person convicted of an offence under this section shall (unless the court for special reasons thinks fit to order otherwise and without prejudice to the power of the court to order a longer period of disqualification) be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of 12 months from the date of conviction. "
"The provisions of these sections are clear in their intention. Once a person is convicted of an offence under section 4(2) of the Act, the Magistrate must disqualify him or her for a maximum period of 12 months unless there are special reasons not to.
Clearly the Legislation intends to protect innocent victims from drivers who may be involved in accidents but who have no means to compensate the injured. The Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act provides for a system of compulsory third party insurance, and provides for mandatory disqualification if drivers disobey the provisions of the law.
To fulfil the sagislegislative purpose, special reasons are not easy to prove.
In Jones -v- English (1951) 2 ALL ER 853, it was held that the onus of showing special reasons, the accused.
I
In the oft-cited case of Whittal -v- Kirby (1946) 2 ALL ER 552, it was held that special reasons were reasons special to the offence and not to the offender, that they were not mitigating circumstances, that they should not amount to a defence in law, and were those considerations which a court ought properly to take into account for the purpose of sentencing.
One example of a special reason might be driving in a medical emergency.
Another might be driving on a road used rarely by others (Wilkinsons Road Traffic Offences p.664).
The good character of the defendant, the hardship he might suffer as a result of the disqualifications, or the fact that he would lose his job, are not special reasons (see Whittal -v- Kirby (supra).
It was held in Rennison -v- Knowler (1947) 1 ALL ER 302, that an honest but mistaken belief that the vehicle was insured, was not a special reason. However where the driver has been misled who believing that the vehicle was insured, special reasons might exist.
The Magistrate disqualified the appellant from driving for twelve months. On appeal Mills-Owen C J said at page 207:
"The authorities.... establish that two matters have to be borne in mind when considering the question of special reasons, namely whether such reasons exist as a matter of law, and if so, but only if so how the discretion of the court should be exercised in the particular circumstances of the case."
His Lordship referred e dece decision of the Divisional Court in Knowler -v- Rennison (supra), which held that:
The qon whether on the the facts found by the trial court it is open to be held that specispecial reasons exist, is one of law; beliwever honest, could not be regarded as a special reason unless based on reasonable grounds.unds."
Mills-Owens C.J. found that although the appellant honestly thought that the vehicle was insured, he had taken no steps to ensure that the management of the firm had been conducted properly in insurance matters, and that as a partner he had an equal responsibility in this respect. The appeal was dismissed."
Conclusion
Pronounced in open Court,
Yohan Liyanage
Resident Magistrate
29th January 2013
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJMC/2013/44.html