Retired judge Prem Persaud has criticized the decision by a magistrate in a recent case for reprimanding and discharging an unlicensed driver for Breach of Insurance and said that the decision reflects insensitivity to the particular offence and lack of knowledge of what the penalty should be.
However, Magistrate Fazil Azeez defended his decision and says that the context in which the sentence was handed down must be considered. He expressed surprised at the retired judge’s comments.
On May 6, appearing before Magistrate Azeez at the Vreed-en-Hoop Magistrate’s Court, Romeo Randolph, a farmer of Hog Island, Essequibo River admitted to charges of dangerous driving, driving without a licence and breach of insurance. He admitted that on May 6 on the Ruby public road, he drove his car, PLL 5706 in a manner dangerous to the public. He also pleaded guilty to being an unlicensed driver and thereby being in breach of insurance in respect to third party risk. The magistrate fined him $75,000 with an alternative of 12 months imprisonment on the first charge, $15,000 with an alternative of three months imprisonment on the second charge and reprimanded and discharged him on the breach of insurance charge.
Rudolph was the driver of one of the cars that was involved in the accident at Ruby, East Bank Essequibo on May 3 in which another driver, 26-year-old Ramesh Sookdeo died.
In a letter published in the Guyana Chronicle yesterday, Justice Persaud outlined the case and said that the order of the magistrate reprimanding and discharging the defendant for the offence of Breach of Insurance “reflects the insensitivity of the magistrate to that particular offence, his lack of knowledge of what the penalty should be, or whatever consideration impelled him to so do.”
Justice Persaud said that the legislature has provided that for a Breach of Insurance offence the penalty must be imprisonment and a person so convicted shall be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a specified period of time.
“It is a serious offence. If anyone is convicted for breach of insurance, a person who may have suffered loss or damage in an accident will not be compensated by the insurance company. The legislature has viewed the breach of insurance so seriously it has mandated that should anyone be so convicted and appeals the Order of the magistrate he will not be permitted to drive, despite the notice of appeal pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. Court prosecutors should be au fait with the penalties and insist that the Courts make the requisite orders”, he said.
However, when contacted last evening, Magistrate Azeez defended his decision. “We must not fall into the trap of looking at things in isolation”, he stated. The magistrate pointed out that Rudolph had faced three charges and in pleading guilty had explained that he was unaware that by driving without being licensed, he had breached the insurance. The magistrate said that ignorance was no excuse and he did not ignore nor condone the fact but the case must be looked at in totality. He said the circumstances must be taken into consideration and the police investigations had revealed what had happened and this was explained by the prosecutor in court.
Magistrate Azeez pointed out that there are two types of breaches of insurance and one refers to a situation where there is no insurance for which there is no reprimand but the car which Rudolph was driving had insurance but because he was not a licensed driver, he breached the insurance. The magistrate declared that he showed no leniency and if the Director of Public Prosecutions does not feel that the penalty was appropriate, the sentence can always be appealed. He said that the retired judge should understand the context in which the reprimand was made and other factors had also been taken into consideration such as Rudolph did not waste the court’s time.
Magistrate Azeez expressed surprise at retired Justice Persaud’s statements and said that he could have contacted him about his concerns as he does not think that he was fully aware of the case.
Meantime, Justice Persaud in his letter also said that “Traffic” is a specialised field, and traffic policemen and officers should be acquainted with all aspects of the legislation. Recruits should not be sent out to be traffic officers who “willy-nilly” stop drivers on the roadway to check on “papers”, he said.
“Can we get the traffic officers not to hold on to drivers’ papers and invite them to go to the police station to await their arrival there? If drivers commit offences let them be issued with tickets. When a policeman holds on to a person’s driving licence he is aiding and abetting the commission of a criminal offence – that is to say – permitting that person to drive without being in actual and physical possession of a driving licence, which the law demands”, he asserted. The retired Justice said that traffic policemen should have a campaign, now and then, to check on drivers to ensure that they are licensed to so do, and that policies of Insurances are in force.
“I hope all who are involved take the time to do their work in a proper manner or in the alternative seek other avenues where they may feel more comfortable”, he added.
