R. v. Tarasha Crim. Rev. 30-A-70; 29/5/70; Bramble J.

R. v. Tarasha Crim. Rev. 30-A-70; 29/5/70; Bramble J.

The accused, a driver of a Public Service Vehicle, was convicted of failing to comply with conditions of road service in that he failed to carry in the vehicle the time table respecting the running of the said vehicle. When the charge was read to the accused he said ‘it is true’ and this was accepted as a plea of guilty. No facts were given by the prosecution to establish the offence and the trial magistrate recorded a conviction and proceeded to sentence.

            Held: (1) “There is no short cut to a trial and in every case where there is a plea of guilty the prosecution must give the facts. It often happens that the facts given do not establish the offence and a plea of guilty cannot then be accepted. This is a case in point assuming that the facts are as stated in the complaint. Moreover ‘it is true’ cannot be an unequivocal plea of guilty by itself.” (2) “Section 26 of the Transport Licencing Ordnance under which the accused  was charged provides that:- Subject to the provision of this section any person who fails to comply with any condition of a licence held by him shall be guilty of an offence under this Ordinance …. This section speaks of a breach of conditions of a licence held by a person and makes that person liable to a penalty. The driver of a vehicle could not be and more often than not is not the holder of a Transport licence with respect to it. In order to succeed on the charge it must be alleged and proved that the accused is the holder of the relevant licence. From the record there is nothing from which this can be even inferred in this case ….. “ (3)Conviction quashed.