Miguel v Hepburn

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Dickson, J.
• Judgment Date: 07 February 1974
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1974 CA 3
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 42
• Date: 07 February 1974

Court of Appeal

Dickson, C.J.

Criminal Appeal No. 42

Miguel

and

Hepburn

Mr. J. C. Gray for appellant

Mr. E. L. Flowers for respondent

Criminal Law - Appeal against Conviction — Sentence

Criminal Law - Road traffic offence — Driving motor vehicle with inefficient brakes contrary to s. 53 Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Regulations, Cap. 62

Statute — Interpretation — Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Regulations, Cap. 62, regs. 53 and 127

Facts: appellant convicted of driving motor vehicle with defective brakes — Magistrate imposed fine of $20.00 or in default one month hard labour — Maximum term of imprisonment as set out in Reg. 229 of relevant legislation was 21 days

Facts: Whether appellant should have been charged with an offence under reg. 53 of Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Regulations, or with an offence under reg. 127 of the same regulations — reg. 53 appeared under heading “Construction of Motor Vehicles”, while reg. 127 appeared under heading “Use and Maintenance of Motor Vehicles” — reg. 53 found to be clear and unambiguous

Facts: Clear and unambiguous wording — Use of Headings — Driving motor vehicle with inefficient brakes, contrary to reg. 53 of Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Regulations, Cap. 62 — reg. 53 and reg. 127 covered matter of inefficient brakes under different headings. Words of reg. 53 clear and unambiguous — Whether appellant should be charged under reg. 53 or under reg. 127

Held: Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction — Appeal against sentence allowed — Sentence varied.

Held: Evidence before magistrate sufficient to support conviction — Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Held: Where words of statute clear and unambiguous headings cannot be used to give a different effect to these words where there cannot be any doubt as to their ordinary meaning. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Dickson, J.

1 The appellant on 24th July, 1970, appeared before the Acting Circuit Magistrate at Corozal in the Corozal Judicial District on an Information and Complaint the material part which reads:

“Ernest Miguel committed the Traffic Offence of “Driving Motor Vehicle with inefficient Brakes” contrary to Section 53 (sic) of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Regulations, Chapter 62 of the Laws of British Honduras, Subsidiary Legislation, 1962 For that the said Ernest Miguel, on the 16th day of April 1969, at Carolina, in the Corozal Judicial District, on a road to wit: The Northern Highway, used Motor Vehicle No. A1634, when its brakes were not maintained in good and efficient working order.”

2 Mr. J. C. Gray of Counsel appeared for the appellant; and on the same day the appellant was convicted of the offence as charged. He was ordered to pay a fine of $20.00 and $23 costs in default one month hard labour. At the close of the prosecution's case, Mr. Gray submitted inter alia, that the Information does not disclose an offence under section (sic) 53 of Chapter 62 and that the correct charge should have been laid under section (sic) 127 of Chapter 62. The submission was overruled by the Magistrate and Mr. Gray intimated to the Court that the defence does not intend call any evidence.

3 At hearing of the appeal, Mr. Gray argued one ground only and said that the main ground of Appeal is whether the appellant ought to have been charged with an offence under regulation 53 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Regulations Chapter 62, or charged with an offence under regulation 127 of the same Regulations. Mr. Gray rightly observes that regulation 53 is contained in Part IV of the Regulations id appears under the heading “Construction of Motor Vehicles”, whilst regulation 27 is contained in Part VIII which falls under the heading “Use and Maintenance of Motor Vehicles”. He also correctly comments that both regulations 53 and 127 were the matter of inefficient brakes. He poses the question whether regulation 53 ought to be construed with the other regulations dealing with construction rather than creating an offence per se. Learned Counsel concedes that the words of regulation 53 are clear and unambiguous, but submits that the clause of a statute must be construed with other clauses to ascertain its meaning. In the course of argument it was implied that the heading under which regulation 53 falls inhibited the plain and ordinary leaning of that regulation; the words of which Counsel conceded was clear and unambiguous.

4 It is useful to quote in full the text of regulation 52 which falls under Part IV:

“Braking Systems

• 52.-(1) Every motor vehicle shall be equipped with two entirely...