Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
| Published date | 01 July 1967 |
| Date | 01 July 1967 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836703100301 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal Law
VOL. XXXI.
No.
3
JULy-SEPTEMBER
1967
Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
PASSENGER IN A VEHICLE TAKEN WITHOUT AUTHORITY
A
YOUTH
who takes a stranger's car and goes for a joy-ride
in it may later espy his girl-friend, and invite her to join
him. Nothing very unusual about this, unfortunately, and
recently one such pair found themselves standing slightly
abashed before a stipendiary magistrate.
They
had been
together in a car when stopped by a police officer, and together
they had been charged with taking it and driving it away,
contrary to s. 217 of
the
Road Traffic Act, 1960, and using it
uninsured, contrary to s. 201, to which they now pleaded
guilty.
It
was not until
the
girl challenged
the
facts stated by
the
police officer that it was realised she had not been con-
cerned in
the
original taking of
the
vehicle. After a short
adjournment, she was charged with allowing herself to be
carried in
the
vehicle, knowing it had been taken without con-
sent, to which she pleaded guilty, and the charge against her
of taking it was dropped.
To
establish the offence of taking and driving away a
motor vehicle without
the
consent of the owner, it is necessary
to show, where the person charged is not
the
taker, that he was
acting in concert with
the
taker in a joint enterprise; it is not
enough to prove he entered
the
vehicle knowing it had been
unlawfully
taken-A.
(an infant) v. Bundy (125 J.P. 89).
Nor
was there a fresh taking when the girl got into the car, for in
R. v. Pearce (1961, Crim. L.R.) the Court of Criminal Appeal
held that it was wrong to treat the offence of taking and driving
away a motor vehicle without the consent of the owners as a
continuing offence, and to direct the
jury
that each time a car
was moved there was a new taking and driving away.
But has she used
the
vehicle without insurance? She
knew when she got into
the
vehicle that
it
had been unlawfully
taken,
but
said that she thought the youth's own policy covered
IS3
CL-
To continue reading
Request your trial