James Timothy Defendant/Applicant v P.C. Pierre Louis Complainant/Respondent [ECSC]

CourtEastern Caribbean Supreme Court
Docket NumberMotion No. 1 of 1969
JudgeLEWIS, C.J., Chief Justice
Judgment Date18 Mar 1970
JurisdictionCaribbean States
Neutral Citation[1970] ECSC J0318-1
[1970] ECSC J0318-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable the Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice Gordon

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard (Ag.)

Motion No. 1 of 1969

Between:
James Timothy
Defendant/Applicant
and
P.C. Pierre Louis
Complainant/Respondent

Dr. O.N. Liverpool for Applicant

N.I. Austin (Attorney General) for Respondent

The judgment of the Court was delivered by —
1 LEWIS, C.J.

2

This is an application by James Timothy for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal out of time against his disqualification for 12 months upon conviction for the offence of unlawfully using a motor vehicle, to wit, a truck No. H.1956 on a public road at a time when there was not in force, in relation to the user of the said motor vehicle, such a policy of insurance as is required by the law, contrary to section 3 (l) of the Motor Vehicle Insurance 3rd Party Ordinance Cap. 201. By section 3 (2) this period of disqualification is mandatory unless the Court for special reasons thinks fit to order otherwise.

3

The grounds of the application are that it would cause great hardship to him if the decision is allowed to stand and that the penalty is excessive.

4

As the Court pointed out to Dr. Liverpool, who appeared on behalf of the applicant, those are really not grounds for urging the Court to allow an extension of time. Nevertheless, the Court allowed him to argue the proposed grounds of appeal in order to see whether there was any reason whatsoever why this Court should grant an extension of time.The proposed grounds of appeal are the same as those set out as the grounds for obtaining leave to appeal out of time, but in a note called 'Case and Argument' it is set out that the applicant has driven for 19 years and has not had an accident or been convicted of any driving offence; he is a married man with 7 children of school age; his truck is their only means of transport, it is also his means of livelihood; he still owes on the truck; and the reason why his policy was not up to date is because the Company had not informed him that it had expired. In his able argument, learned counsel for the applicant has urged that although it is true that a special reason under section 3 (2) must, on the authorities, be one attributable to the circumstances of the offence, and not to the offender, this was nevertheless a case in which the Court would be inclined at least to reduce the period of disqualification, because at the time when the...

To continue reading

Request your trial