|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires every person who uses, or
causes and permits another person to use, a motor vehicle on a road or other
public place to have a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks.
These offences carry an endorsement range of 6-8 penalty points and it should be
noted that the Court has the power to disqualify, on a discretionary basis.
Increasingly, these cases are proceeding by way of fixed penalty notice with the
offer of 6 penalty points and a £60 fine. As this is the very minimum penalty
prescribed by law, a driver guilty of an offence under Section 143 of the Road
Traffic Act 1988 should be aware that by not accepting the fixed penalty notice,
there is a possibility that an increased penalty or disqualification may be
imposed by the Courts.
The offence is one of strict liability and although it would appear to be a
relatively uncomplicated matter as to whether a breach of the provisions has
occurred, experience suggests to the contrary.
Close examination of the terms of the policy is required together with proper
consideration of the statutory defence for persons using vehicles in the course
of their employment and all other relevant circumstances.
A common form of policy allows driving, with the permission of the insured
person, by any person “who holds or has held a driving licence”. This clause can
be crucial as it may permit insurance cover even if the person does not, at the
time of driving or using the vehicle, hold a valid driving licence. All too
often, the assumption is made that simply because a driving licence is not valid
that any associated insurance cover must be negated. This is not the case and
proper enquiry should be undertaken to clarify the driving licence condition
clause.
There is also a statutory defence for persons using vehicles in the course of
their employment. There are three conditions that require to be established for
a successful defence under Section 143(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
|
|
(a) |
|
That the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a
contract of loan or hiring
|
|
|
(b) |
|
That he was using the vehicle in the course of his
employment;
|
|
|
(c) |
|
That he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security.
|
It is for an accused person to satisfy the Court of all three conditions on the
balance of probabilities.
It is possible for the Court to decide that special reasons exist for not
endorsing in respect of an offence under Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act
1988. It should be noted that the concept of special reasons essentially links
up to the circumstances of an offence and allows the Court to excuse the
offender having regard to a mitigating or extenuating circumstance. This must
not, in law, amount to a defence to the charge and must be directly connected to
the commission of the offence and be a circumstance that the Court ought
properly to take into consideration when imposing sentence.
An honest, but groundless, belief that the policy covered a particular use cannot amount
to a special reason. The existence of special reasons is determined on the
balance of probabilities. Typically the submissions need to be significantly
persuasive in order to persuade the Court to refrain from imposing the usual
number of penalty points or disqualifying. These are discussed in more detail
elsewhere on the site. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ml@theroadtrafficlawyer.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|