Page 659 - Driving Ban Simulation 1

person he — it’s — with anybody, no — no enquiries at the ® scene to
establish that he was working.
28
244,
MR KENNEDY: It’s Galbraith (Inaudible), isn’t it?
Yes. I would suggest the answer is No.
THE RECORDER: Thank y What you do have — the height of the Crown’s case would be the
admission that the — by Mr. Cordell that he said at the start “I’m just
going to work”. That’s the height of the Crown’s case. In my submission,
you cannot rely on that being an accurate and truthful note of the
conversation that he -- because of the credibility issues concerning the one
witness who gives that evidence. So taking a step back, can the Crown
prove beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence we’ve heard already that
— I know that’s not the test at this stage but applying the correct test at
this stage, the half-time test, could a reasonable -- could a reasonable
tribunal properly directed convict on the evidence that they’ve heard?
ou. Mr Pottinger?
MR KENNEDY: What do you say about the burden of proof in relation to this offence not
for the half-time submission but for the end of the day?
THE RECORDER: (In fraud the evidence is that the defendant was there with Dean Reid,
according to the officer in clothing consistent with work in a vehicle in a
condition although without tools consistent with being used for work, with
a number of business cards containing the names Dean and Simon, the two
persons in that van, advertising a business in provision of general repairs,
painting decorating, man and van removals, cleaning, property
maintenance services. So, the Crown say that there’s an obvious inference
there. Simon and Dean were in a van together, there’s a card saying Simon
and Dean, general jobs - nothing to do with the motor trade because that
would be covered by the use - in a van, consistent with it being used for
odd jobs, in clothing consistent with being used with odd jobs and — and
an admission at the start.ible).
MR POTTINGER: On the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no policy
in force?
THE RECORDER: Well, no. No, it’s not. It’s for the defendant to prove on the balance of
probabilities there was no policy in force for the use of that vehicle.
MR POTTINGER: Sorry, for the defendant to prove
THE RECORDER: It’s for the defendant — sorry, for the defendant to prove on
29
245,
MR POTTINGER: the balance of probabilities. It’s really a question of the use of the vehicle
and the nature of the use. So the
THE RECORDER: It all comes down to the use, doesn’t it?
MR POTTINGER: Yes.
THE RECORDER: Thank you.
MR POTTINGER: That was the -- grey area which I was seeking just to think about briefly.
THE RECORDER: Well, I understand. But I just wanted to clarify
MR POTTINGER: Yes. No, you can — the -- it’s an absolute offence. I think the — and the
burden of proof section is at 32-179. The prosecution has to prove the