Britto et Al v Alves

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Wooding, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 13 February 1967
• Neutral Citation: TT 1967 CA 14
• Docket Number: No. 814 of 1966
• Court: Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 13 February 1967

Court of Appeal

Wooding, C.J.; McShine, J.A.; Phillips, J.A.

No. 814 of 1966

Britto et al

and

Alves

Appearances:

Mr. M. de la Bastide appeared for the appellants.

Mr. C. Bernard, Crown Counsel, appeared for the respondent.

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Driving without being the holder of a driving permit. Whether place on which the accused was driving was a road within the meaning of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Ordinance.

Facts: The appellant Britto was charged and convicted of driving a crane without being the holder of a driving permit. Appealed against conviction.

Held: Place on which the appellant was driving on was a private road in a restricted area. Access to it was not being granted to the public at large. It was therefore not a road within the meaning of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Ordinance. Appeal accordingly allowed with costs.

Wooding, C.J.

1 The appellants were charged in connection with the driving of a motor crane on the Bonne Aventure Road at Pointe-a-Pierre, the appellant Stauble being charged with employing the appellant Britto to drive the crane, Britto not being the holder of a driving permit issued under the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Ordinance, and Britto being charged with driving the crane without the holder of a driving permit. The magistrate convicted both appellants and they have both appealed.

2 The first point taken on behalf of the appellant Stauble - and we deal with it notwithstanding the view we have reached on the second point in the case as we think it should be brought to the attention of the magistrates for their guidance generally - was that Stauble was not the employer of Britto, but was the managing director of the Company, H.J. Stauble Ltd., which employed Britto. The prosecution led no evidence as to who employed Britto, so at the close of the prosecution case the charge against the appellant Stauble ought to have been discussed. There is however clear authority that if no point is taken at that stage there is no obligation - I stress the word obligation - on the part of the Court to dismiss an accused person without calling on him. We nevertheless think that the Court should do so. But if, not having been discharged, the accused person goes into the witness-box and gives evidence against himself, that evidence must be considered when the magistrate comes to consider his decision at the end of the entire case. The only evidence as to employment was given by Stauble and Britto, and their evidence clearly was that the employer was H.J. Stauble Ltd. and that the appellant Stauble was merely the employer's agent for giving orders to Britto. That being so, the Company, and not the appellant Stauble, was Britto's employer. The charge against Stauble should accordingly have been dismissed. On that ground alone, therefore, he is entitled to have the appeal against his conviction allowed.

3 The second point taken was as to whether the Bonne Aventure Road is a road within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Ordinance. The term ‘road’ is therein defined as meaning –

“Any street, road or open space to which the public are granted access and any bridge over which a road passes, and includes any privately owned street, road or open space to which the public are granted access either generally...