Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
| Published date | 01 January 1949 |
| Date | 01 January 1949 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201834901300101 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal
Law
VOl..
XIII.
No.1.
JANuARy-MARCH,
1949.
Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
PRODUCTION
OF
INSURANCE
CERTIFICATE
BY A
'SELF-DRIVE'
MOTOR
HIRE
COMPANY
AT
North
London Magistrates' Court recently aLimited
Company, whose business
it
is to hire
out
cars on a
"self-drive" basis, was summoned under section 40
(3)
of
the
Road
Traffic Act, 1930, which reads
:-
"
It
shall be
the
duty
of
the
owner of a motor vehicle
to give such information as he
may
be required
by
or
on behalf of a chief officer of police to give for
the
purpose of determining whether
the
vehicle was or
was
not
being driven in contravention of section thirty-five
of this Act on
any
occasion when
the
driver was re-
quired
under
this section to produce his certificate,
and
if
the
owner fails to do so he shall be guilty of an
offence".
The
facts, which were
not
in dispute, were as follows.
Aman, X, was involved in an accident whilst using a
car
hired from
the
above Company.
He
did
not
produce
an insurance certificate
at
the
time, or later, having been
served with
the
appropriate notice to do so. After some
enquiry
the
Police eventually went to
the
premises of
the
Company
and
saw
the
general manager to whom they
explained
the
object of their visit, when he
stated
that
the
car
was
not
used for
the
purpose for which
it
was hired
and
was therefore
not
,overed
by
insurance.
He
declined to
show
the
insurance certificate. Ahire agreement was,
however, produced,
and
showed
that
X
had
hired
the
car
for a period of 48 hours for
private
purposes only in
the
A1
2
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINAL LAW
London district.
The
manager alleged
that
the
car
had
been used for business
and
not
for pleasure. Afinal visit
was made to
the
Company when
the
provisions of section
40(3) were explained
to
the
manager,
and
he was again
asked to produce
the
insurance certificate. This he refused
to do, saying
that
he
had
definite instructions
not
to
divulge
the
particulars to
the
Police,
that
there was some
"monkey-business" behind
it
all
and
that
the
Company
were convinced
that
Xwas
not
driving
at
the
time
and
that
the
matter
should therefore go before
the
magistrate for
an independent decision.
He
refused to give
the
name of
the
insurance company
and
admitted
that
his allegations
against Xwere merely supposition.
Counsel for
the
defence called no evidence,
but
referred
to
the
definition of 'owner' within
the
meaning of
the
above
section, as set
out
in section 121
:-
"'Owner' in relation to a vehicle which is
the
subject
of a hiring agreement or hire purchase agreement,
means
the
person in possession of
the
vehicle
under
that
agreement"
and
submitted
that
the
owner was
the
man
X, whose
responsibility it was to produce
the
certificate
and
that
there
was no onus upon
the
Company to do so.
In
reply,
the
solicitor for
the
prosecution merely
stated
that
if
that
were so,
and
the
Company refused
to
let
the
driver-hirer
have
the
certificate to produce,
the
position
became impossible
and
no sanction could be applied against
the
Company.
The
magistrate accepted
the
submission of
the
defence
and
dismissed
the
summons. Counsel thereupon made
an
application for costs on
the
ground
that
as
the
prosecution
could find no effective reply
to
his submission, then,
had
the
facts been properly examined in
the
first instance,
the
summons would never
have
been brought.
The
magistrate
agreed,
and
awarded three guineas costs against
the
Police.
It
may
seem surprising
at
first view
that
the
prose-
cution did
not
make
the
obvious reply
that
'owner' within
the
meaning of
the
section
must
be
the
owner
at
the
time
the
information is requested
by
the
Police
and
not
at
the
time of
the
alleged offence which
they
were investigating.
They
had
doubtless, however, to consider
the
complication
COURTS
OF
SUMMARY
JURISDICTION
3
of
the
car
being hired
out
to
third
parties
at
the
time of
their requests,
and
although this would no
doubt
have
produced alively argument,
it
may
well be
that
they
considered
the
ramifications of
it
to be such
that
it
would be
wiser
to
avoid it.
The
matter
will doubtless arise again, for
it
was
apparent
from
the
cross-examination
that
the
Company
was not, in their view, being unreasonably obstructive to
the
Police,
but
that
they
were
not
unnaturally
diffident
about
handing over insurance certificates to casual hirers
to produce to Police
and
considered
that
production
by
a
representative of
the
Company to a police
station
within
the
statutory
period should be considered sufficient (instead
of
the
personal production required
by
section 40),
and
they
had
no
doubt
decided
to
take
up their particular
attitude
in order to bring
the
matter
to official notice.
AN
UNACCOUNTABLE
ACCIDENT
: WAS
IT
CARELESS
DRIVING?
At
2-20 p.m. on
the
20th August, an accident occurred
in Wandsworth
Road
under
rather
mysterious circum-
stances between a
van
and
atram. Subsequently, on
the
27th October, asummons for driving without due care
and
attention
was
heard
at
South
Western Magistrates' Court
against
the
driver of
the
van.
The
tram
driver travelling
along Wandsworth
Road
saw
the
van
coming in
the
opposite
direction on
its
proper side of
the
road. There was no
obstruction in
the
road although
the
road narrows slightly
under
the
bridge. Suddenly for no
apparent
reason
the
van
swerved across
the
road
and
came into collision with
the
front off-side of
the
tram. The defendant received a
blow on
the
head
and
was
taken
to hospital. Afterwards
he could give no account of how
the
accident happened.
His memory of
the
occurrence was a complete blank.
There was
not
the
slightest suggestion of his having fallen
asleep or of his having been under
the
influence of drink
or drugs.
The
steering mechanism of
the
van
was in
working order.
The
only witness to
the
accident was
the
tram
driver
and
he saw nothing
to
account for
the
action
of
the
defendant.
The
magistrate, Mr. W. B.
Frampton,
in considering
all
the
facts drew
attention
to differences between civil
and
To continue reading
Request your trial