Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835802200401 |
| Date | 01 October 1958 |
| Published date | 01 October 1958 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal Law
VOL.
XXII. No. 4 OCTOBER-DECEMBER, 1958
Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
DISQUALIFICATION TO DATE
FROM
CONVICTION
ATthe Liverpool City Magistrates' .Court recently a
defendant was charged with driving amotor-car while
disqualified for holding or obtaining adriving licence, contrary
to s. 7 (4) of
the
Road Traffic Act, 1930.
The
date of offence
alleged was
the
4th
May, 1958.
The
defendant was represented
by a Solicitor,
and
pleaded guilty.
The
facts, as stated by the Solicitor for the prosecution,
were that the defendant was found driving amotor-car on a
road,
and
was arrested on other charges which are not relevant
to this report. Subsequent enquiries revealed that on the
4th
March, 1957, at a Magistrates' Court in
the
South of England,
he had been disqualified for holding or obtaining adriving
licence for a period of two years. He was, therefore, charged
with the offence of driving on
4th
May, 1958, while dis-
qualified, and, as stated above, he pleaded guilty.
The
prosecuting Solicitor, having outlined the facts,
handed to the Court aCertificate relating to the defendant's
conviction on the 4th March, 1957, which, inter alia, disclosed
that the defendant had been convicted on that date of two
offences of using uninsured motor vehicles, contrary to s. 35
of
the
Road Traffic Act, 1930.
The
adjudication on the first
charge read
"Fined
£4
and disqualified from holding or
obtaining adriving licence for
12
months"
and
on the second
charge
"Fined
£4
and disqualified from holding or obtaining
adriving licence for a period of 12 months, such period to run
consecutively with the other period
of
12
months."
It will be noticed that the date of
the
alleged offence of
driving while disqualified was more than
12
months after the
date of disqualification and, therefore, the defendant's guilt
depended
upon
whether
the
adjudication italicised above was
one which the Court could properly make.
It
is submitted
257
To continue reading
Request your trial