By Alexander Bruzual Wednesday, September 30 2009

click on pic to zoom in

PROSECUTOR: State Prosecutor Renuka Rambhajan as she leaves the Port-of-Spain Magistrates' Court after making submissions to the court to pursue the c...

« prev photo next photo »

In her first appearance for the State yesterday in a matter in which Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls was one of the subjects of an alleged traffic offence, Prosecutor Renuka Rambhajan led powerful submissions contesting that a prima facie case had been made out.

Mc Nicolls was before the court along with his driver Police Constable Sean Simon, for the use of a motor vehicle without a valid policy of insurance.

The matter was called before Senior Magistrate Lucina Cardenas-Ragoonanan, in the 4A Magistrate’s Court.

The State prosecutor focussed her arguments around two main points.

Firstly there was not a valid insurance policy at the time when the vehicle belonging to Mc Nicolls was involved in an accident, as there was not a valid certificate of insurance.

Secondly, the letters from Capital Insurance which were tendered into evidence and seemed to create the possibility of a policy of automatic renewal, also included crucial terms which indicated the policy had to be confirmed by Mc Nicolls in order to continue to be enforced. A process which was reportedly never done.

Rambhajan explained that under Section 4(8) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance Act Ch 48:51, insurance policies were not given any effect under law, unless there was an issued certificate of insurance.

Therefore, since the motor vehicle accident took place at 1125am on February 20, and the certificate which was presented at the Princes Town Police Station, was dated 225 pm on the same date, with the previous certificate having expired on December 21, 2008, it was clear there was no policy of insurance at the time of the accident.

“The hour of issue at 2.25 pm is a live issue and powerful issue for the State,” Rambhajan explained.

She said the date of issue of the 2009 certificate was crucial, especially since it was not done retrospectively to cover the date of the accident, or the time since the previous certificate expired.

She said even if automatic renewal did exist, the letters which were tendered into evidence from the insurance company indicated this condition of the policy had to be affirmed by Mc Nicolls. Something which was not done, as the Chief Magistrate was not in the country at the time of the issue of the new certificate, and since no evidence was led which confirmed it.

“The State submits that no positive act was put forward, and if it was, the court is currently unaware of it,” Rambhajan said.

She said this was a crucial condition as a positive act was clearly required in order for any benefit to be sustained to the defendant.

“Even at its lowest point, the defence submits the Prosecution’s case is weak, the State is arguing based on the letters submitted, and the surrounding conditions, there is enough evidence here to have the matter continue to trial,” Rambhajan said. Defence attorney Israel Khan SC, who is representing the two accused men in the matter, once again attacked the State representative for confusing the differences between insurance policies and insurance certificates.

He said the defendants were “no doubt guilty” of driving and causing to drive a motor vehicle without a valid insurance certificate, however this was not the charge which was before the court.

He said in the letters submitted to the court, Capital Insurance had clearly stated the policy was automatically renewed from the day of the certificate’s expiration, and only closed when the company notified the licensing authority that the policy holder had reneged on payments.

Khan said it was up to the State to show the appropriate authorities had received this notice and since they had not lead any such evidence, the automatic renewal of the policy was still enforced.

After hearing both sides, Cardenas-Ragoonanan said she would need time to go over the arguments once again, before coming to a conclusion.

The matter is scheduled to resume October 6.

Section 4(8) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance Act Ch 48:51 :

A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Act unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate (in this Act referred to as a “certificate of insurance”) in duplicate in the prescribed form and containing such particulars of any conditions subject to which the policy is issued and of any other matters as may be prescribed, and different forms and different particulars may be prescribed in relation to different cases or circumstances.