Tuesday February 9th, 2010
- Last update:11 hours 38 min ago
McNicolls, driver freed in traffic case
Published: 20 Oct 2009
Sherman McNicolls
All traffic charges against Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls and his driver PC Sean Simon were yesterday dismissed. Senior Magistrate Lucina Cardenas-Ragoonanan, presiding in the Port-of-Spain Four B Magistrate’s Court, ruled that at the time of an accident in February, this year, Simon did in fact have a valid certificate of insurance. She said as a result of this Simon and McNicolls were found not guilty of the charges laid against them.
McNicolls was charged with permitting Simon with driving his (McNicolls’) vehicle without a valid certificate of insurance while Simon had been charged with driving the vehicle without insurance. Cardenas-Ragoonanan based her ruling on new evidence by defence attorneys Ian Benjamin and Israel Khan, SC, who represented both men. Benjamin submitted into evidence Simon’s insurance policy, pointing out that at the time of the accident it permitted him to drive not only his own vehicle but another private car.
“Simon’s policy of insurance allows him to drive any other motor vehicle and his policy confirms that he was covered,” Benjamin said. He said the effective date of Simon’s insurance included the period in which the accident occurred. He said the inquiries conducted in the matter involving his clients were not done diligently and were incomplete as Simon’s certificate of insurance was not asked for. But, State prosecutor Renuka Rambhagan argued that Simon would have been covered by his policy in relation to a private vehicle not a T-registered vehicle, which was used for transporting goods, according to regulations. “Whether a vehicle carries a T or P, it is what it (is) used for,” Cardenas-Ragoonanan said.
In making her ruling the magistrate noted that, according to her research, there was no such thing as an automatic renewal of an insurance policy. In previous hearings Khan and Benjamin argued that their clients were not supposed to be charged as an automatic renewal was in effect. They said this meant that McNicoll’s insurance policy was up to date. Cardenas-Ragoonanan added that on the date of the accident there was no valid certificate of insurance. However, she said, based on the new evidence, Simon did have a valid policy of insurance. On these grounds she dismissed the case against him. She said as a result of Simon being found not guilty of not having a policy enforced, McNicolls will be found not guilty as well.
The charges
The charges against them stemmed from an accident on February 20, in which a vehicle driven by a Mt Hope woman collided with McNicolls’ Mitsubishi L 200. The woman reported the incident to the Belmont Police Station while Simon made a report to the Princes Town Police Station later that night. Cpl Rakesh Ramsook of the Belmont Police Station laid the charges.
triniman65 Did we
triniman65
Did we expect a different result from this cult ?????
They ran true to form. Just wasted precious time
and money with this trial. But Bambye we go see !!!!!
According to the magistrate
According to the magistrate an insurance for a "P" vehicle covers a "T" vehicle. So, if the "T" vehicle was transporting a passenger in its tray without authorisation, would the insurance pay in the event of death or injury of this passenger? I'm not so sure.
I have another question: The law requires a driver to have his DL & insurance certificate when driving. Did the driver have his own insurance with him at the time he was driving Mc Nicholls' vehicle? And was it his own insurance certificate that he produced at the Princes Town Police Station within the legally stipulated time? Or was it the post-dated covernote/ins. cert. that he produced and later tendered before the court at the earlier hearing? If so, then they did not have a valid insurance cover at the time at the time of the accident or when it was required to be produced to the police and the magistrate might have erred in accepting a cover-up certificate. Good try, but the Police should appeal this suspicious ruling.
This is just like the musical courts involving Cumberbatch vs Manning. In this case it's musical insurance certificates.
On the assumption that the
On the assumption that the magistrate is correct will there now be a queue of libel lawyers?
I was under the impresion
I was under the impresion that insurance covers an individual, not a vehicle - thus the cost is predicated upon the driving record of the individual. From what I am reading, commentors are expecting the car to be insured, which is not correct, the car only has to be licensed. If I had a handicap that made me incapable of even obtaining a drivers permit, I could still own a car, license it, and have someone with a valid drivers permit and insurance, drive me on occassion.
I would expect that if you
I would expect that if you have a car it must be insured to be driven on a public road. If you want someone else to drive it, that person should be designated on your insurance as a named driver. Insurance would be calculated on the make/age/value etc of the car and the age/driving experience etc of the owner/driver/named driver(s).
I don't believe that a non-named driver with his own insurance would exempt you from insuring your vehicle if it's on the road. An un-named driver could have authorisation from his own insurance company, if expressly stated, to drive another vehicle, but probably not a rented car, but cover would be restricted to third party liability. See my other contributions elsewhere.
McNichols did not have
McNichols did not have insurance for his vehicle but Simon had insurance to drive McNicols vehicle.Try to figure this out.I guess we are moving foward.What a mockery of the law.INVESTIGATE THE MAGISTRATE.
The precident has already
The precident has already been set. I wonder who going to get charge for not having insurance now. I have two vehicles, but from now I paying insurance for only one, because as long as I have insurance I fine. I tell you, I have never in my life seen more disregard for the law than under this government. In 2001, Mr Manning said and I quote " BE CAREFUL WHO YOU PUT IN CHARGE OF THE TREASURY". We cant now condemn the PNM, we were already warned. It's our fault. And then we must not forget, that the biggest agent of the PNM is well disguised in the UNC. Unless God plays a hand, we doomed to have the PNM for another 30 years. Anyway, I already have my papers inside for Canadian citizenship.
PNM_TILL_I_DIE
Seriously people, did anyone
Seriously people, did anyone on this planet expect any other decision or outcome of this matter?
http://www.dsaltsman.blogspot.com/
Is this a new law in T&T
Is this a new law in T&T where one person can have insurance for HIS personal vehicle and drive my vehicle if I don't have insurance?
I hope that people are paying attention to these changes in the law and know that we can all save some money.
I would imagine that it
I would imagine that it would be against the law to have an uninsured vehicle driven on a public road. With respect to driving another party's vehicle, in some countries, your own insurance policy would cover you driving such a vehicle for the minimum third party cover, if so certified. Eg: A drives B's vehicle which has fully comprehensive cover when he/she (A) is a named driver is in control,no problem. However, in the case of A driving B's vehicle where A is not a named driver on B's comp. policy, but driving on his, A's fully comp. policy where authorised, then A's cover is reduced to third party. So damage to B's vehicle is not covered; the third party cover only extends to to a third party or a third party's vehicle/person/property, as I understand it.
You would need to check your own policy/certificate/ insurance provider to see whether you are covered to drive another vehicle.
This raises another question: did Simon's insurance automatically or expressly cover him to drive another person's vehicle? If so, then the other party's vehicle should be repaired under Simon's insurance if he, Simon was at fault. If his cover did not automatically or expressly extend to driving another vehicle, then we are back to square one, i.e. he was driving without valid insurance.
Perhaps only in some
Perhaps only in some
With respect to driving another party's vehicle, in some countries, your own insurance policy would cover you driving such a vehicle for the minimum third party cover,
I seem to recall that being the case, ie. if you had car insurance, it would cover you to drive a car where you were not the named driver. However, I believe a lot of car insurance companies (around the world) phased this out, because they would not make money from it. I suspect though that this may vary for certain professions, eg a policeman (not necessarily in T&T) may be allowed to drive a vehicle if for some reason the driver was unable to do so and the vehicle had to be moved or even as a fleet driver. Similarly, baliffs etc.
La Diva
Provision still exists
Provision still exists abroad; need to check out if it is in T&T.
Hmmmmm
Hmmmmm
I don't think it still exists in the UK, but am not in the car insurance business so, please don't take my word for it... on this occassion. (^_~)
La Diva
That doesn't exists in the
That doesn't exists in the US either...the insurance certficate has the owner's name, the policy number, the VIN number, the year and make of the insured vehicle. This prevents me from driving your car if your car has no insurance although I have insurance for my car.
Great !! Now I am going to
Great !! Now I am going to do the same thing. I know I will be protected in court, as McNichols have set an example and will use that argument in court. Yaaaay the land of the freeeeee!!! woo hooo
Only in Trinidad. What did
Only in Trinidad.
What did we expect. The laws of T&T are different for Senior officials. The evidence in this matter displayed that McNicolls vehicle did not have valid insurance at the appointed time, Simon's insurance only covered him for driving any other motor vehicle. Why was McNicolls not charged for not having insurane for the said vehicle which belonged to him? So is it safe to say that those of us who posses two vehicles need only insure one. Is this a new precedence set by the courts. I sincerely hope that this will be considered when other citizens are charged of the same offence.
...ah yes! Of
...ah yes! Of course!...Lucinda the Liberator has done it again!!!...heck, we knew it all along....the best magistracy that money and influence can buy.....
Give the magistrate a job
Give the magistrate a job with UDECOTT.SHE DESERVES IT.She and Calder Hart would make a good pair.
Fellow Trinis.. The biggest
Fellow Trinis.. The biggest scamp in this whole thing is the Lairs..the Lawyers. The Police did their duty..but The Scamps..from Magistrate to Israel Khan twisted the truth. Now everyone is above the law... The criminals..who could shoot and kill (they should be called SNIPERS now)right under the eyes of Police...and the Lawyers who could twist your case. And you think we are lawless? We are law-ful.. full of lawyers who make us a lawless society.
Why should Mc Nichols be above the law??
It pays to be educated and connected in Trinidad. Is who you know.. ent??
skydiver15748 I think that
skydiver15748
I think that the Magistrate in fact snd in law made the right decision. But of course being her, she based it on the wrong thing.
If the certificate was in fact renewed on a regular basis, as a result of a course of dealing, then the magistrate ought to have taken that into account.
If she was not satisfied with the sayso of Counsel then it was open to her to ask for the records of the insurance for the vehicle to be brought to the court and a representative of the insurance broker or company would have taken the records in.
If at that point she thought that the renewed certificate was bona fide, the charges would have been dismissed.
If the records could not have been produced then the decision would have been different.
In this situation the driver would have been charged for also not producing an insurance policy.
In such cases when persons are so charged, and the policy produced subsequently, they may actually be fined or R&D - and not only persons like the Chief Magistrate get the benefit of that, in many, many, cases John Public benefits from the 'human' face of the Magistrate.
Ragoonanan has opened up a sluice gate by basing her decision on her 'secondary' reasoning. It is a practice in the insurance industry to do this, and not just for McNicolls
I don't want to think it,
I don't want to think it, but just for some food for thought. Could this case have been "fixed" to begin with? I am not accusing this magistrate of any impropriety, but this lady has to work for and with Chief Magistrate McNicolls now and in the future. And you remember the old saying "you scratch my back, I scratch your back!"
I see that as a factor in how this case was decided. Maybe I am wrong! At least I hope so.
It would be interesting to see how many "natives" will hire sharp defense attorneys who can use the precedence outlined in this case in the defense of their clients. Let's see if the law is truly "blind" and that everyone is treated equally under it.
WHY DO WE NEED THE PRIVY
WHY DO WE NEED THE PRIVY COUNCIL? -
Why do we need the privy council again?