{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f168\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f169\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f171\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f172\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f173\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f174\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f175\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f176\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid75118\rsid722143\rsid1900914\rsid1986989\rsid2390978\rsid3305661 \rsid4536660\rsid4994706\rsid7287879\rsid8878564\rsid10504847\rsid11098670\rsid13912417}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6612;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI}{\author blake_r}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo2\dy15\hr9\min59} {\revtim\yr2005\mo2\dy15\hr9\min59}{\version2}{\edmins1}{\nofpages7}{\nofwords2800}{\nofchars15961}{\*\company USP}{\nofcharsws18724}{\vern16389}}\paperw11904\paperh16834\margl1440\margr1440 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\subfontbysize\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3 \jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot8878564 \fet0\sectd \linex0\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}} {\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (} {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 Appellate Jurisdiction}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 CRIMINAL AP}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 PEAL NO.}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 27 OF 1978 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 MICHAEL RAMAN \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 s/o Chinaiya}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 Appellant \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 v. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 REGINAM \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 Respondent \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 JUDGMENT \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 The appellant on the 13th day of March, 1978}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 was convicted by the Magistrates Court, Suva of the offences (as charged) of "Permitting Another Person to Drive a}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 Motor Vehicle. Without a Driving Licence contrary to sections 23(1) and 85 of the Traffic Ordinance" and "Permitting Another Person to Drive a Motor Vehicle in Contravention of Third Party Policy Risk contrary to section 4(1)(2) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Ordinance".}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 On conviction the appellant was fined $15 in default one month's imprisonment in respect of the first offence and $60 in default two months' imprisonment on}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 the second offence and was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of two years.}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 He appeals against the convictions and sentences. I will deal with the first offence referred to above. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 Section 23(1) of the Traffic Ordinance provides as follows: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 "23}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 .}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 (1). Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, it shall be an offence for any person to drive a motor vehicle of any class upon a road unless he is the holder of a driving licence valid in respect of such class under the provisions of this}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 Part of this Ordinance or to employ any other person so to drive a motor vehicle of any class unless such other person is the holder of such a driving licence." \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8878564\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 The appellant was charged with the following}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8878564\charrsid3305661 offence: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1986989\charrsid3305661 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 "}{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 Statement }{ \fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 of }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 Offence}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 PERMITTING ANOTHER PERSON TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT DRIVI}{ \fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 NG }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 LICENCE}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 :}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 Contrary }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 t}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 o sections}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 23(1) }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 an}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 d 85 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 o}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 f}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 the Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 152.}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 Particulars of Offence \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 MICHAEL R}{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 AMAN}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 s/o CHINAIYA, on the 10th }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 day o}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 f }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 July, 1977 at Suva in the Central Division, permitted RAVIND CHAND s/o}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 RAM DAYAL to drive a private motor vehicle on Kings Road, 6 Miles without Driving Licence." \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 Section 23(1) of the Traffic Ordinance does not use the word "permit" but uses the word "employ". This was raised in ar}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4994706 gument in t }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 he Court below but the learned trial Magistrate in his judgment held that the word "employ" as used in section 23(1) }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4994706 of}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 the Traffic Ordinance was to}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 be interpreted in its widest sense "thus covering those persons who permit, use, allow, etc, other persons who are unlicensed to drive motor vehicles". He further held the charge as drafted was properly drafted and within}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 the terms of section 23(1) of the Traffic Ordinance.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 There is no dispute about the facts. The appellant was sitting alongside the driver }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4994706 of}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 the appellant's vehicle when it was involved in an accident. The driver had never held a driving licence. On the}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 facts the appellant clearly permitted an unlicensed driver to drive the appellant's vehicle. While the appellant did not know the driver had no licence until after the accident in which the vehicle was involved, the sole issue which I have to decide is whether the learned trial Magistrate was correct in interpreting the word "employ" in the manner he did to include the meaning of " permit". There can be no doubt that if a person is employed to drive a vehicle he is also permitted to drive that vehicle but it does not follow that the converse is true, that}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 a person permitted to drive a vehicle is employed by the owner to drive that vehicle.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 In Part III of the Traffic Ordinance in which section 23 falls the words "permit" or "permits" are used in sections 8(2) and 9(1)}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 . }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 Section 23(1), however,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 uses the word "employ" where the word "permit}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7287879 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 could }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 have been used. The legislature clearly intended to provide for a situation which went beyond the m}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7287879 e}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 re granting of permission to drive a vehicle. By the use of the word "employ" it was in my view intended to cover the situation where a person uses the serv ices of a driver for the purpose of driving that person's vehicle. The driver may be a servant of that person and be employed}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 in } {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 the usual sense of that word but the relationship }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4994706 of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 master and servant is not necessary to constitute an offence under the section. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 He can be an agent.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7287879 The sense of the word "employ" i}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 s }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7287879 [sic] }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 used in the section is "To use the services of for some purpose" or "to find work or occupation for".}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 (The Shorter}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 Oxford English Dictionary). Of the two meanings given, the first I have quoted is the more apposite. In its context in section 23(1) the words "to }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 employ any other person so to drive a vehicle" connotes that the driving is for the owner and for that owner's business whether commercial or private.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 Two examples will indicate the meaning. If an owner asks 'A' an }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 unlicensed driver to drive him to Nausori Airport he employs that person to drive the vehicle }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 with}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 in the meaning }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4994706 of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 "employ" in section 23. It matters not that 'A' is }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 not paid for his services. If however, the driver is asked by 'B' for a loan of his car and 'B' }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 asks 'A' }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 the unlicensed driver to drive him to Nausori Airport it }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 is 'B' who employs 'A' to drive. The owner in this case has not employed 'A' and in this example would not even have permitted 'A' to drive if in fact he gave no permission for 'B' to employ 'A'.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 In my view if an owner was to lend his car to}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 a person who did not have a driving licence and who wanted the vehicle for that person's private use that person is not employed by the owner and the }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 ow ner commits no offence under section 23(1). The owner would, however, have committed an offence under section 4(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Ordinance if he permitted that person to drive, a matter I have to consider as regards the second offence in this case.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 My interpretation of section 23(1) is }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 not an evasion of the intention o f the legislature, a matter which concerned the learned trial Magistrate. The driver with no driving licence is caught by the section. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 It is his responsibility to see he is licensed to drive that vehicle. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 So too it is the responsibility of a person employing a driver, in the sense }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 of using that person's services to drive, to ensure that the driver is licensed}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 to drive that vehicle. }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 The relationship of master and servant or agency must exist. It is an absolute offence to employ an unlicensed driver to drive a vehicle.}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 In my view "employ" does not mean "permit}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 , although a person employed to do something is permitted to do that which he is employed to do. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 Permission and}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 employment are not synonymous terms.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 Employ" and}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 "permit" }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 correspond to "use the services of" and "allow". \par \par Counsel for the Crown could not support the learned trial Magistrate's interpretation }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4994706 of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 "employ" and }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 advised the Court he could find no authority to justify the interpretation.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 As charged there was no offence created by section 23}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7287879 (}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 1) of the Traffic Ordinance of Permitting Another Person to Drive a Motor Vehicle Without a Driving Licence. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 It follows that the appellant should not have been convicted on the first count and the appeal must be allowed. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 The conviction is quashed. The fine if paid is to be refunded to the appellant. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 The second part of the appeal relating to the second count has involved considerable reference to authorities. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 Counsel for the appellant, while quoting cases in support of his argument, frankly admitted that the weight of the authorities were against him. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 Counsel for the Crown, while contending that the learned trial Magistrate did not err, referred to certain Fiji Authorities}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 and queried whether }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 Ramdayal}{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 v R.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 6 F.L.A. 134 was properly decided. That was o}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 ne of }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 three Fiji cases on which counsel for the appellant relied in the Court below, and also referred to in this appeal. The other two cases were }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 Murtaza Khan v. R.}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 11 F.L.R.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 161 and }{ \fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 R. v. Temo Maya}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 Review }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 N}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 o. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 6 of 1977.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 The learned trial Magistrate referred to these three cases in his judgment }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1900914 and held they were not relevant.}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 \par \par Counsel for the Crown also stated that there was some uncertainty amongst Magistrates as to the law to be applied in Fiji and asked whether this opportunity could be taken to seek clarification of the law. \par \par I accede to this request as it would appear there is some uncertainty and misunderstanding of the Fiji authorities in particular as regards Ramdayal's case. \par \par The facts in Ramdayal's case were very similar to the facts in the instant case. The appellant in that case was convicted by the Magistrates Court of driving an uninsured vehicle. At the time of the offence the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The only difference between the facts in Ramdayal's case and the instant case is that in Ramdayal's case the driver had not renewed his licence and in }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 the instant case the }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 driver had never held a licence. \par \par Ramdayal's case went on appeal to the Supreme Court in 1959 and this must be borne in mind because it would appear from the judgment in that appeal that the}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 form of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 Third Party Insurance Policies}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 issued in 1959 differed in at least one important aspect from the policies issued at the present time.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 One of the conditions in the}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 1959 policies was as follows:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 "The person insured}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 shall not use the motor vehicle nor shall the owner cause permit or suffer any person to use such motor vehicle ...}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 (d) whilst any such person as aforesaid does not hold s licence to drive}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13912417 a}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 vehicle of the class described herein." \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 The judgment does not state who was covered by the policy but I would assume it would cover the owner and any person driving with the owner's permission.}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 The policy referred to in the judgment did contain the following words: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 "The insurer agrees subject to the terms limitations exclusions and conditions contained herein or endorsed hereafter and to the provisions of the said Ordinance to insure the persons or classes of persons insured under this policy ... against all liabil} {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13912417 ity incurred by such persons or}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 classes of persons." \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 \par Present day policies contain the same words. I have quoted these words as they appear in the judgment which indicate the omission of certain words. In policies issued today the missing words are "as des}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 cribed under paragraph 4 above",}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11098670\charrsid3305661 and it would appear such words appeared in the policy under consideration in Ramdayal's case. \par \par Paragraph 4 refers to the persons or classes of persons entitled to drive and insured under the policy. \par \par In Ramdayal's case there had been a breach of a condition namely permitting an unlicensed driver to drive the vehicle and it was held by the then learned Chief Justice that the breach of the condit ion made the policy voidable at the instance of the insurer but that there was in force at the relevant time a policy of insurance covering third party risks. Ramdayal's conviction was quashed. \par \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 Ramdayal's case was properly decided but the decision turned on the form }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4994706 of}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 the policy then in existence. It is not now authority for cases where the driver is not licensed d ue to the form of the policies now issued to which I will shortly refer. It is still authority, however, for other cases where there has been a breach of a condition which makes the policy voidable at the instance }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4994706 of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 the insurer. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 In the instant case the po licy was not exhibited in the Court below but it was produced in Court and the Magistrate did read it and has referred to it in his judgment where he has quoted para 4(b) of the policy.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 It appears that after Ramdayal's case the insurers changed their form of policy. The condition I referred to earlier when dealing with Ramdayal's case is no longer a condition listed in the conditions at the back of present day policies. Instead the insurers have added a proviso to paragraph 4 which I set out in full: \par \par }\pard \ql \fi-698\li1418\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1418\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 "4.\tab PERSONS OR CLASS}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 E}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 S OF PERSONS ENTITLED TO DRIVE AND INSURED UNDER THIS POLICY. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }\pard \ql \li2160\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 (a) The owner, and \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }\pard \ql \li2160\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 (b) Any person who is driving on the driver's order or with his permission: \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 \par }\pard \ql \li1418\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1418\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 Provided that the person driving holds a licence pe rmitting him to drive a motor vehicle for every purpose for which the use of the above motor vehicle is limited under para 5 below or at any time within the period of thirty days immediately prior to the time of driving has held such a licence and is not disqualified for holding or obtaining such a licence." \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 \par This was a very substantial change of form. In 1959 the breach of a condition to like effect made the policy voidable. But by virtue of this proviso the legal}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 position now is that a driver who holds no valid driving licence, or did not hold one within 30 days prior to the time of driving, or is disqualified from holding or obtain ing a licence, is not covered by the policy at all. There would in fact be no policy in force covering such an unlicensed driver, because the policy does not extend to cover an unlicensed driver. \par \par Having distinguished Ramdayal's case I turn now to the case of }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 Murtaza Khan v. R}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 . This case like Ramdayal's case was concerned wit a breach }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4994706 of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 a condition - using a private car for c arrying fare paying passengers. The appeal was allowed in Murtaza Khan's case on the construction of section 6(1) }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4994706 of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 the Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Ordinance. It was held (inter alia) that the section did not extend to a private}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305661 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 vehicle in respect of which a fare is charged on isolated occasions.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid722143\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 Murtaza Khan's case has no relevance to the instant case but it was referred to and relied on in }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid722143 R. v. Temo Maya}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 Review No. 6 of 1977 and this case may also have given rise to uncertainty. \par \par In that case the accused did not hold a valid driving licence. He had held a learner's permit which had expired. The Magistrate having convicted the accused was in doubt whether he was correct in holding that at the re levant time there was no policy of insurance covering third party risks and referred the matter to this Court. \par \par The learned Judge who reviewed the case was of the}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid722143 view that there was a policy in}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 force at the relevant time and quashed the conviction. \par \par With respect to the learned Judge's views I am of the view that the learned trial Magistrate was correct in holding there was no insurance policy in force.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid722143\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 In relying on Murtaza Khan's case th}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2390978 e learned Judge appears not to h}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 ave appreciated that that case d ealt with a breach of a condition, which made the policy voidable only, the policy remaining in force. In Temo Maya's case, however, as in the instant case, the policy did not extend to cover an unlicensed driver and there was not in force at the relevant time a policy which covered the driver. The cover was circumscribed by the proviso. Since I am differing from the view expressed by my brother Judge in his review of Temo Maya's case, I have consulted the learned Chief Justice who concurs in my decision. \par \par From what I have already stated it follows that the learned trial Magistrate in the instant case was correct in convicting the appellant. \par \par For the guidance of Magistrates I will refer briefly to some English authoritie}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid722143 s which support the view I hold.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid722143\charrsid3305661 \par }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid722143 Lyons v. May}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid722143 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 (1948) 2 All E.R. 1062.}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid722143 This was a }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 case where}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid722143 th}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 e}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid722143 policy }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 covered only the owner and }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid722143 authorised persons in his employ. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 The vehicle was driven by a garage proprietor who was not employed by the insured and who was not covered by insurance. The Justices were directed to convict the owner. \par \par }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid722143 Tapsell v. Maslen}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid722143 (1967) Crim. L.R. 5}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 3 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid722143 is of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 interest because the commentary refers to the fact that the word "permits" in the English section does not require "mens rea". (See also }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid722143 Boss v. Kingston}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 (1963) 1 All E.R. 177). In this case the defendant lent his motor scooter to W. who had no insurance certificate. W. drove the scooter uninsured. Defendant was convicted after the appellate court directed Justices to convict. \par \par }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid722143 Baugh v. Crago}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 (1975) Crim. L.R. 72 was a ca se on all fours with the instant case. The defendant permitted 'X' to use a van which was insured against third party risks when driven by the policy holder and any other person provided he was the holder of a driving licence. 'X' did not have a driving l icen}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2390978 ce. The defendant did not know 'X'}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 had no licence. The Justices dismissed the information but on appeal were directed to convict. \par \par }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid722143 Bright v. Ashfold}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 (1932) 2 K.B.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2390978 153 dealt with a condition }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 which circumscribed the operation of the policy from the be ginning and it was held there was no policy in force. The policy only covered a motor cycle with side car attached. At the time of the offence the defendant was ri}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10504847 d}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 ing the cycle without a side car with a passenger behind him. The proviso to paragraph 4 of the Fiji policies now in use is such a circumscribing condition. \par \par The foregoing are only a sample of the very many English decisions which support the conviction }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4994706 of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 the appellant in the instant case. \par \par English policies differ from, Fiji policies in one respect. The usual English policies are issued in the form - "provided the driver holds }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid722143 or has held}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 a driving licence}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10504847 and is not disqualified or word}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 s to that effect (the underlining being}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid722143 mine). }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 This form of policy is very much more favourable to third parties than the Fiji form of policy. There appears to be no logic in excluding from the policy drivers who have passed driving tests and have held a licence, but who are unlicensed at the relevant time or have not held a licence within 30 days prior to that time. If a driver has forgotten to renew his licence for 30 days he will still be covered by his policy - but not if the period is 31 days. The Ordinance woks to protect third parties, and the real criteria should in my view be whether the driver is competent to d r ive the vehicle. Obviously he is not if he has been disqualified; but I fail to see the logic of exempting an insurer from liability where a competent driver previously licensed and not disqualified has omitted to renew his licence for more than 30 days, However, that is a condition insurers have imposed in their policies. \par \par Only legislation can now bring Fiji policies into line with English policies in this respect and, in the interests }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4994706 of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 third parties, a change of law would appear desirable. \par \par The learned trial Magistrate did not err in convicting the appellant on the second cou}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10504847 n}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 t and the appeal against conviction fails. \par \par On the question of sentence, counsel for the Crown did not seek to support the t}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10504847 w}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 o year disqualification. He pointed out that the Magistrate, to be consistent with the two year disqualification imposed on the driver of the vehicle, disqualified the appellant for the same period; but the driver was in fact convicted of three offences, namely Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, Driving with No Driving Licence, and Driving Without Third Party cover. \par \par In these circumstances the appeal against sentence on the second count is allowed. The two year disqualification is cancelled and in lieu thereof is substituted disqualification of the appellant for a period of one year from the 13th day of M arch 1978 from holding or applying for a driving licence. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid722143 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid722143 R.G. Ke}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid722143\charrsid722143 rmode \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid722143 JUDGE \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3305661 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid75118\charrsid3305661 \par Suva, \par 30th May, 1978. \par }}