Juma King’ombe v. R., Crim. App. 67-M-69 28/3/69, Bramble J.

 Juma King’ombe v. R., Crim. App. 67-M-69 28/3/69, Bramble J.

The appellant was convicted on his own plea of driving a motor vehicle on a public road without third party insurance c/s 4(1) and (2), Motor Vehicle Insurance Ordinance. He was fined and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months. He has appealed against the order of disqualification on the ground that the statement in his plea in mitigation of sentence amounted to special reasons. His statement was that he was the owner of a motor vehicle for three years. From April 1968 to December 1968 the vehicle was out of order and he could not get parts to repair it. In December 1968 he secured parts and repaired it himself. He was testing it on the road when he was stopped by the police and the vehicle carried a sign ‘On Test’. The insurance had expired in June 1968.

Held: (1) “The relevant law in England previous to 1960 was the same as it is in Tanzania and the English decisions while not binding are persuasive. On the question of the procedure to establish “special reasons” it was held in Jones v. English [1951] 2 All E.R. 855 as follows: “Where …… a defendant has been convicted of an offence for which the penalty of disqualification is laid down …. And he seeks to rely on special reasons for the non-imposition of disqualification, he ought to give evidence and the justices ought to hear evidence on the point and not merely accept statements.” It was, however, held In Brown v. Dyerson [1968] 3 W.L.R. that “although evidence should be called to substantiate facts relied upon as constituting special reasons, failure would not invalidate the justices decision if there was material capable of sustaining a finding of special reasons.” As a matter of practice, I am of the view, that special reasons should be supported by evidence rather than statements when the courts will better be able to find certain facts and determine whether or not they constitute special reasons …… The learned magistrate, however, would appear to have considered the facts as stated by the appellant and since there is no record that the prosecution did not disagree I will consider them as facts found.” (2) “The point in issue is whether, testing a vehicle after repairs, is a special reason to exempt the appellant from disqualification. I can do not better than refer to an English case Gardner v. James [1948] 2 All E. R. 1069 in which he had just bought and assembled himself. It had no insurance and the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance. On appeal it was held that testing a vehicle in these circumstances did not constitute ‘special reasons’ entitling the justices to refuse to suspend the licence. In this case the offence was a serious one exposing users of the road to great risks in that if they were injured they would get no compensation. The appellant was fully aware of the risk and the danger possibly was greater with a vehicle under repair and I cannot see how the fact that the vehicle was on test could be mitigating factor to support the non-suspension of a driving permit. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.”