Olairivan s/o Mollel v. R., Crim. App. 412-D-67, 5/7/67, Saidi, J.

Olairivan s/o Mollel v. R., Crim. App. 412-D-67, 5/7/67, Saidi, J.

Appellant was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence following his conviction, inter alia, of driving on a public road without having third party insurance, in violation of the Motor Vehicles Insurance Ordinance, Cap. 169,s.4(1). Pursuant to section 4(2) of the Ordinance, appellant would not have lost his licence had been able to show “special reasons” for his illegal action. In his petition to the court, appellant stated as reasons the fact that his job requires him to drive extensively

            Held: Special reasons must be reasons special to the circumstances of the case and not to the accused himself. In the present case the appellant has no explanation to offer showing the necessity for his driving the uninsured car at the relevant time. The fact that his job requires him to drive a car is not a “special reason” as it does not relate to the offence but to himself.