The Manager, Burhani Saw Mills, Ltd. v. R. Crim. App. 292-D-68, 28/6/68, Georges C. J.

The Manager, Burhani Saw Mills, Ltd. v. R. Crim. App. 292-D-68, 28/6/68, Georges C. J.

The accused Company was charged with six offences under the Traffic Ordinance; permitting a motor vehicle to be driven whilst steering was defective [ss. 43 and 70]; and without the appropriate licence [ss. 6 and 70]; permitting an unlicensed person to use the vehicle [ ss. 14(2) and 70]; failing to affix identification marks on the vehicle [ss. 3(1)(k) and 69 of the Rule]; contravening rules relating to driver’s accommodation in a commercial vehicle by failing to provide a barrier; and contravening the conditions of the use of the motor vehicle by having defective springs. A motor vehicle inspector on examining the vehicle found all these defects. The manager of the company testified that he had “refused” to let the driver take the vehicle and that the driver had used it for his own purposes contrary to the instructions.

            Held: (1) Once the word “permit” is used, mens rea is required. [Citing Alli s/o Mzee v. R. [1960] E.A. 404]. This does not require an active grant of consent but may involve an inattention to duty. (2) There was evidence that the driver disobeyed his instructions from the manager and, in the circumstances, the company did not permit the act.(3) Where the offence is using a vehicle in a defective state, as apart from permitting its use, no mens rea need be proved, provided always that the servant is driving on his master’s business. [Citing James & Son Ltd. v. Smee [1954] All E. R. 273 at p. 277.] This was not proven to  be the case here. Appeal allowed.