Rabsatt v The Chief of Police

• Jurisdiction: British Virgin Islands
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Virgin Islands)
• Judge: Gordan, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 26 November 1970
• Neutral Citation: VG 1970 CA 3
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1970
• Date: 26 November 1970

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J., Gordon, J.A., Lewis, J.A.

Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1970

Rabsatt

and

The Chief of Police

J.S. Archibald for Appellant

E.A. Hewlett, Acting Attorney General, for Respondent

Criminal Law - Evidence — Burden of Proof.

Facts: The issue was whether the appellant's conviction represented an error in law. Evidence revealed that the appellant was convicted of driving without insurance coverage. At his trial after a no-case submission was rejected he offered no evidence in his defense.

Held: Under the Magistrate's Code in cases where information is peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused then the evidential burden of proof is on the accused person. The appellant by not electing to give evidence left the court no option but to reject appeal.

Gordan, J.A.

1 The appellant was convicted on the 9th September, 1971 for driving a vehicle on the 10th Augusts 1970, without in force in relation to that vehicle a policy of insurance in respect of third party risky contrary to section 3 (1) of the Motor Vehicle' Insurance Ordinance Cap. 219 of the Revised edition 1961 of the Laws of the Virgin Islands. He was sentenced to 2 months hard labour and now appeals against this conviction on the ground that the decision is erroneous in point of law.

2 At the trial the only evidence led by the prosecution was that the appellant drove the vehicle in questions a mini moke, on the 10th August, 1970, and that he was informed by Corporal Williams that he would be reported for driving without having in force the necessary coverage relating to the vehicle.

3 When the learned trial magistrate over-ruled a no case submission at the close of the prosecution case, counsel for the appellant tendered no evidence in defence. The appellant was then duly convicted.

4 Before this Court counsel for the appellant urged as his sole ground of appeal that the decision is erroneous in point of law in that the learned magistrate herd it was unnecessary for the prosecution to give some evidence that the appellant was not in this case a licensed driver before the appellant was required to discharge any onus to satisfy the Court that a policy of insurance was in force.

5 In support of his ground of appeals counsel for appellant urged on the Court that having regard to section 5 of the Evidence Act (Cap. 25) Revised Edition 1961 of the laws of the Virgin Islands which provides that no person can be compelled...