Traffic charges against Mc Nicolls and cop dismissedBy Alexander Bruzual Tuesday, October 20 2009
click on pic to zoom in
Sherman Mc Nicolls ...
Last minute evidence unearthed by defence counsel Israel Khan SC, and Ian Benjamin, saved both Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls and Police Constable Sean Simon from a conviction before the courts.
Mc Nicolls was charged with permitting his bodyguard, Simon, to drive his (Mc Nicolls’) vehicle without a valid policy of insurance. Simon was also charged with driving the vehicle without a valid policy of insurance.
The charges stemmed from an alleged accident on February 20, last, in which a vehicle, driven by a woman of Mt Hope, collided with the vehicle driven by Simon.
However, these charges were dismissed yesterday in the Port-of-Spain 4A Magistrates’ Court following two hour long legal submissions made by the defence attorneys and State Prosecutor, Renuka Rambhajan.
In this same vein it was also argued when an insurance certificate was acquired following the accident, the time between the expiry date of the previous certificate and the issuance of the new one was covered retrospectively. However Lucina Cardenas-Ragoonanan, dismissed these arguments saying there was no such thing as an automatic renewal in the eyes of the law. She explained arrangements could have been made for long term policies, however this was distinctly different from the concept which the defence argued.
She then explained there was no retrospective application of insurance in this incident as in the rare incidences where it applied, it was always for something specific. Therefore based on the evidence led, she said it did not apply in this instance.
Cardenas-Ragoonanan further pointed out the defence’s case was also hurt from evidence led through the States’ cross-examination of Capital Insurance, General Manager Yacoob Ali, who said in court there was no insurance coverage at the time of the accident.
However yesterday, in legal submissions by the defence attorneys it was revealed there was in fact a valid policy of insurance at the time of the accident, through coverage by Simon. The attorneys explained Simon had a valid policy of insurance in his name which stretched from May 28, 2008, to May 28, 2009, and from the terms and conditions of this policy, the police officer was insured for the use of private vehicles other than his.
Initially the State resisted this argument by pointing out Simon’s policy only gave him rights to drive private vehicles, and the vehicle which was listed in Mc Nicolls’ name was, through legal regulations, not classed as such. She argued legally the vehicle was only classed for use for goods, and as such, there was no valid coverage when Simon used it. However the Senior Magistrate dismissed this argument, pointing out several occasions in the policy where certain terms defined that Mc Nicolls’ vehicle class would be covered.
Following these submissions, Cardenas-Ragoonanan indicated this new piece of information was key to the defence’s case, and based on it, she was able to formally dismiss the charges against the two accused men.
