IN 1960, Sooknandan was using his private car as a hire car on the West Coast of Demerara when he was caught red-handed as a result of a police trap.

He was prosecuted and convicted by a magistrate.    Dissatisfied with the ruling, he appealed to the Full Court for redress.
The Full Court, constituted by Chief Justice J.A. Luckhoo and Justice H. B.S. Bollers, heard the Appeal, affirmed the magistrate’s conviction and sentence, and dismissed the matter.
The evidence about the payment at Windsor Forest was unchallenged, but it was contended,  for the defendant, that it had not been established that the payment  was for a place in  the car, that the evidence  did not  therefore disclose that  the vehicle  had been used for  conveying  passengers  at separate fares, stage by stage,  or stopping to pick up  or set down  passengers along the line of route, and that as the magistrate did not advert to this aspect of the matter  in his memorandum of reasons for decision it should not be assumed  that he had not in fact directed his attention to it.
The Full Court held that:
(1) In the case of a police trap, there is no requirement that the evidence of the decoy  should be  corroborated. All that is necessary is that it should be acted upon with caution.
(2) As a Court of rehearing, the Full Court is entitled to look at the specific  findings of fact  made by the magistrate  together  with other unchallenged  and  unrebutted  evidence  not adverted to by him  in his memorandum  of reasons for decision to see if the decision reached by him could be supported (Gonsalves v- Chairman of the Poor Law Commissioners, 1939 L.R.B.G. 68. Applied).  
Mr. J. O. F. Haynes, Q. C, appeared for the appellant, while Mr. E. A. Romao, Senior Crown Counsel, held for the respondent.
According to the judgment handed down by the Full Court, the appellant, ,Sooknandan,  was convicted by the magistrate of  the West Demerara Judicial District on a charge of using an unlicensed vehicle,  contrary to Section 23 (1) of the Motor Vehicles  and Road  Traffic Ordinance, Chapter 280,  as provided by Section 20 (2) of  the said Ordinance.  
The case for the prosecution was to the effect that on June 4, 1960, on the Vreed-en-Hoop Public Road, in the West Demerara Judicial  District, the appellant used motor car No. PJ 231, for  which  there was  in force  a licence as a  private car, as a vehicle for carrying  passengers for hire for reward  at separate fares,  stage by stage,  or stopping  to pick up  or set down passengers along the line  of route.
Such latter user was for a different purpose and different user from that for which the car was licensed.   Under  the schedule  to the  Ordinance,  the licence  fee  for  the  latter user is substantially higher than the user  of a private car.  
The evidence on behalf of the prosecution disclosed that one Chapman was  given a marked  dollar note  by  the  Police at Leonora.   Chapman was  given certain  instructions by the  Police  in consequence of which he went  to a  spot  on the  Public Road at Leonora  near to a gasoline station.
The defendant was driving  the car  east along the  Public Road  at  Leonora,  and was  stopped  by Chapman,  who asked  him  how much he would charge to take him to Vreed-en-Hoop.  The defendant replied, “50 cents,” and told  Chapman to get into the car.
There were, at that time, three other persons in the car. At Windsor Forest, on the way to Vreed-en-Hoop, the car stopped, and one of the three persons left the car, after giving the defendant some money.  The car was driven to Vreed-en-Hoop, and, at  the junction of the West Coast  and West Bank Public Roads, Chapman  disembarked  and paid  the  defendant with the marked  dollar note, receiving  back  50 cents  from the defendant .
The two other persons  remained in the  car.   As the Appellant (Sooknandan, the driver) was about to drive off, one Cpl Lewis  and Police Constable Mc Lean, who were in ambush, came up, and at their behest, the  Appellant   produced  the marked  dollar note. In his defence, the appellant alleged that he had taken Chapman without  charge, and  did not  accept any money as a fare or servant from him.   He also denied proffering any money to the  police.
But the magistrate did not buy the appellant’s story and found that Chapman’s evidence  was corroborated in material particulars to his satisfaction.    It is to be observed  that in the case  of a police trap,  there is no requirement  that  the evidence  of  the decoy should be corroborated . All that is necessary is that it  should be acted upon with caution.
After referring to other aspects of the case the judgment added, “ in the case before us we are of the  opinion that  the evidence does  support  the decision of  the magistrate.   The appeal is dismissed and  the conviction and sentence affirmed with costs to the respondent.