Vasudevan Pazhiyoor V. Procurator Fiscal, Hamilton
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Drummond Young,Lady Smith,Lady Paton |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] HCJAC 39 |
| Date | 19 February 2013 |
| Year | 2013 |
| Published date | 27 March 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Docket Number | XJ1002/12 |
| APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY | |
| Lady Paton Lady Smith Lord Drummond Young | [2013] HCJAC 39 XJ1002/12 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LADY PATON in BILL OF SUSPENSION by VASUDEVAN PAZHIYOOR Complainer; against PROCURATOR FISCAL, HAMILTON Respondent: _____________ |
Complainer: S Collins, Solicitor Advocate; Capital Defence, Edinburgh (for David Sutherland & Co, Aberdeen)
Respondent: Niven Smith, AD; Crown Agent
19 February 2013
[1] In this Bill of Suspension, the complainer pled guilty to charge 2 (driving without insurance). He pled not guilty to charge 1 (taking a vehicle without permission) and charge 3 (driving otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his driving licence, namely, corrected vision). His pleas of not guilty to charges 1 and 3 were accepted by the Crown.
[2] The case was continued for a "special reasons" proof on 20 August 2012. At that diet, the complainer sought to withdraw his plea of guilty as he had discovered that, although he had been driving a friend's vehicle and he had pled guilty on the basis that the friend had no insurance cover for him, he was in fact covered by his own insurance policy. The justice nevertheless refused to permit the complainer to withdraw his plea, for the reasons given in paragraph 7 of the justice's report.
[3] Mr Collins acknowledged that the complainer should have checked his own insurance at an earlier stage. However in this appeal we now have a copy of a certificate of motor insurance which the Crown accept (for today's purposes) is ex facie valid i.e valid to cover the complainer driving a friend's car on the date in question, 19 September 2011. Importantly, that document was not before the justice. As the justice points out at paragraph 7 of his report, "I did not accept the complainer's position re his own policy." Nevertheless the document which we see covers the complainer's driving other vehicles provided that, first, he was driving with the consent of the owner and secondly, he was driving in accordance with the conditions of his own driving licence.
[4] Mr Collins' primary submission was that the justice's order refusing to allow withdrawal of the plea of guilty should be suspended, and the case remitted for the purposes of a trial on charge 2. We understood the advocate depute's position to be that the Crown, whilst today accepting the insurance certificate as ex facie valid, do not concede that the complainer was covered by insurance at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mr. Holger T. Held v The General Dental Council
...51 Ms Scarbrough also referred me to the decision of the Extra Division, Inner House, Court of Session in Dr David Kerr Black [2013] HCJAC 39, where the court had to consider an appeal against erasure brought by a dentist who had practised as such without PI insurance. Although the facts we......