Onus of Proof on Defendant: No Driving Licence or No Insurance Policy
| Author | D. R. Upchurch |
| Published date | 01 October 1953 |
| Date | 01 October 1953 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X5302600407 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
290
THE
POLlCE
JOURNAL
grant, steadily employed in the city, proved to be the elusive burglar.
Asearch
of
his home uncovered
thousands
of
dollars' worth of jewellery
and
clothing.
On 20th
February
1953
Raymond
Schieste
appeared
in Police
Court,
pleading guilty to ninety-eight charges
of
housebreaking
and
theft. He was sentenced to six years in the penitentiary.
Onus
of
Proof on Defendant:
NO
DRIVING
LICENCE OR NO INSURANCE
POLICY
By
CHIEF
INSPECTOR
D. R.
UPCHURCH
Bedfordshire County Constabulary
THE RE appears to be a wide divergence
of
views regarding the
amount
of
evidence which is required in
order
to prove
that
a
driver is not in possession
of
acurrent driving licence or certificate
of
insurance. Prosecutions
of
this
nature
often
occur
after a police officer
has issued
the
driver with a
Form
HOjRTjl
for the
production
of
his
driving licence
and
certificate
of
insurance at a police station, elected
by the driver. Should the driving licence or certificate of insurance be
invalid,
the
driver is
summoned
upon the information which has been
obtained by the officer to whom the documents were produced. Very
often this police officer may be a member of a
Constabulary
200
miles or
more
from the Force issuing the summons.
When I have prosecuted these cases I only call the local police
officer to give evidence
that
he saw the defendant driving, caused
him to stop,
and
that
the defendant was unable to produce adriving
licence or certificate
of
insurance, this evidence proving aprima facie
case. Sometimes Ihave also
produced
a form in compliance with
section 41
of
the Criminal Justice Act,1948, in which the defendant
admits he was driving the vehicle at the time
and
date in question.
There is a space on this form which can be completed by the defendant
if he so wishes, asking for the police officer by
whom
he was interviewed
in his
home
town
to be present at the
court
hearing. If this
portion
of
the form is
not
completed by the defendant, the police officer attached
to
another
Force
is
not
called. Producing this
form
is no
doubt
quite
unnecessary,
but
it adds alittle weight to the evidence if the defendant
has not written to the court.
I am
of
the
opinion
that
the
onus
of
proof
in these cases is upon
the defendant, that is, that he must prove he has a driving licence or
To continue reading
Request your trial