Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Dr. M. H. Iskander v. R., Crim. App. 44-M-689, 8/2/68, Mustafa J.

 


Dr. M. H. Iskander v. R., Crim. App. 44-M-689, 8/2/68, Mustafa J.

Upon conviction of assorted driving offences, accused ’s licence was revoked for 12 months. (He was also fined.) When asked if there were any special reasons why he should not lose his licence, he replied that he was a medical doctor, that he used his car for the benefit of the people, and that he needed to drive if he was to carry out his duties effectively.

            Held: There are many authorities for the proposition that “special reasons” must be special to the circumstances of the case and not to the offender. “The fact that an accused ’s livelihood depends on motor driving or that he has a very good driving record is not a special reason.” [Citing Whittall v. Kirby (1947) K.B.194; R. v. Hohn Gedeon and Simon Jeremiah (1957) E. A. 664.] Revocation of licence by the trial court upheld. 

Post a Comment

0 Comments