Dear Editor,
I have noted what Magistrate Azeez allegedly told your reporter: 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.”
Perhaps I am too long away from the courts to be aware of continuing and existing legislation, so can the learned magistrate tell us what provisions of the law define the two types of breach of insurance?
And while he is at it, can he explain what the “other factors” are he had also taken into consideration, apart from the “defendant not wasting the court’s time”?
I based my comments on the fact that the defendant drove a vehicle on the public road when he was not the holder of a driver’s licence, and that he drove dangerously. Can the magistrate tell what other factors were involved of which I was not fully aware?
Can the learned magistrate advise that in view of the fact that the vehicle was insured whether the insurance company will admit liability with respect to the injured/deceased who were involved in the accident?
Yours faithfully,
Prem Persaud
