Magistrate finds driver of private car guilty of taking passengers for rewards

-Federal Supreme Court dismisses conviction and sentence

IN 1960, after two days of hearing, the Federal Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction and constituted by Chief Justice Halinan, Justices A. M. Lewis and Marnan, began a two-day hearing of Singh v. Henry of a Road Traffic case, where a private motor car was used for carriage of passengers for reward from one place to another and back. 

That court wanted to know whether an offence was committed under the motor vehicles & Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 280(BG) 20(2)and 28.
Under Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles & Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 280 [B.G] “hire car” means a motor car used or instead to be used for carrying not more than seven passengers for hire reward expressed or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole; and “motor bus” means a motor vehicle constructed and used for carrying not less than eight passengers for hire or reward at separate fares stage by stage or stopping to pick up or set down passengers along the line of route.
Section 20 (2) provides that where a motor vehicle has been licensed solely for a certain purpose but it is used for another purpose, an offence is deemed to have been committed under Section 23 if the fee chargeable in respect of a vehicle used for that other purpose is higher than the fee chargeable in respect of the licence taken out.
The appellant, whose motor vehicle was licensed for private use, took a passenger for reward from Mahaica to Georgetown and back. He was convicted by a magistrate who held that the vehicle had been used as a hired car.
Upon appeal to the Full Court, that court upheld the conviction, but upon the ground that the vehicle had been used as a motor bus.
That court held: That the evidence of the motor car had been used as either a hire car or a motor bus was insufficient to support a conviction and that although the vehicle appeared to have been used for reward that user did not fall into any category of licence for which a fee higher than the fee for a private motor car licence is chargeable.

Appeal allowed
In the appeal against a decision of a Full Court of the Supreme Court of British Guiana affirming a conviction by a magistrate for using an unlicensed motor vehicle,
F.H. W. Ramsahoye appeared for the appellant, while E. A. Ramao, (Ag) Senior Crown Counsel, represented the Crown.
Chief Justice Halliman delivered the judgment of the Court. The appellant was convicted under Section 23 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 280 [B.G], of using an unlicensed motor vehicle. The appellant’s motor car was in fact licensed as a private car, but the prosecution alleged that under the provisions of Section 20(2) he has, nevertheless, committed an offence an offence under Section 23. Section 20 (2) provides as follows:
“Where a licence has been taken out for a motor vehicle to be used solely for a certain purpose and the vehicle is at any time during the period for which the licence is in force used for some other purpose , the person so using the vehicle shall, if the fee chargeable in respect of a licence for a vehicle used for that purpose is higher than the fee chargeable in respect of the licence held by him, be deemed to be guilty of an offence under Section 23 of the Ordinance, and the provisions of that section shall apply accordingly.”
“The prosecution established that the appellant had taken one Shivram for reward from Mahaica to Georgetown and back. The magistrate held that the appellant had used his vehicle for hire or reward and that he should, therefore, have had a licence for a hired car. Since a licence for a hired car has to pay a higher fee than that for a private car, held that the provisions of Section 20 (2) applied and that the appellant was guilty of an offence under Section 23.”
“Upon appeal to the Full Court,it was held that the magistrate’s finding that the car had been used as a hired car was wrong, as according to the definition of “hire car” in Section 2 of the Ordinance, there must be a contract for the use of the vehicle as a whole, and there was no evidence of any such contract.
“However the Full Court held that there was sufficient evidence that the appellant had carried passengers for hire or reward at separate fares and stage by stage.”
“The vehicle should, therefore, have been licensed as a “motor bus” as defined by Section 2 of the Ordinance, and should have paid a higher fee than that payable for a private car. The Full Court accordingly affirmed the conviction but on a different ground to that of the magistrate.”
“The point which fails to be decided in this appeal, in our view, narrows down to this : Can it be said that by taking a passenger for reward from Mahaica to Georgetown and back the appellant had used the vehicle for reward “at separate fares stage by stage?” The definition of “motor bus” speaks of the vehicle being used “for hire or reward at separate fares stage by stage or stopping to pick up or set down passengers at fixed intermediate bus stops or whenever requested.”
“It would be straining the natural interpretation of the words ‘stage by stage “in the context to treat the journey from Mahaica to Georgetown as a stage and the return journey as another stage.”
“We consider the evidence that the motor car was used either as a hire car or as a motor bus is insufficient to support the conviction. The vehicle appears to have been used for reward but that does not fall into any category of licence for which a fee is chargeable higher than the fee for a private motor car licence.”
“The conviction and sentence is therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed.”

(By George Barclay)

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.