Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A Licensing Authority policy, preventing all transactions in relation to a vehicle until traffic tickets issued to authorised users are paid, has been deemed illegal and unconstitutional.
High Court Judge Avason Quinlan-Williams gave the declaration late last month when she upheld a case filed by auto body mechanic Neil Thomas against Transport Commissioner Clive Clarke and the Office of the Attorney General. She gave written reasons for her decision in a 21-page judgment on Monday.
In his lawsuit, Thomas claimed the issue arose after he purchased a Nissan Wingroad from a woman in July,2022.
After paying $30,000 to the woman, they went to the Licensing Authority’s office at Wrightson Road in Port-of-Spain to transfer the vehicle. A licensing officer inspected the vehicle’s engine and chassis numbers before verbally approving the transaction.
On February 13 last year, Thomas was dropping his daughter to school in El Dorado when he received a fixed penalty traffic ticket from a traffic warden for using his cellphone while driving.
When Thomas sought to have his vehicle inspected at a private garage the following month, he was told that he could not do so until a $1,000 ticket linked to the vehicle was paid. After explaining that he had already paid the ticket he received, the vehicle inspector told him it was not issued to him or the previous owner but to a third party.
Thomas confirmed the information through the Ministry of Works and Transport online database and sought to contact the driver who received the ticket. The driver advised him of the purported policy and advised that he pay the fine quickly as it would increase the longer it remained unpaid. He then contacted the authority, which informed him that the fine now stood at $1,500.
After his lawyers, led by Anand Ramlogan, SC, threatened to file a lawsuit over the policy, the ministry’s permanent secretary wrote to him apologising for what transpired and advised that he could have his vehicle inspected at any inspection station.
In the lawsuit, the defendants admitted that the policy was wrongly applied to Thomas, as they claimed that it is only valid if the vehicle was not transferred before it sought to enforce the unpaid ticket. In determining the case, Justice Quinlan-Williams considered the scenarios for issuing a ticket under the Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Act. She noted that the ticket could either be issued to an errant user of the vehicle or affixed to the vehicle.
Justice Quinlan-Williams ruled that Section 88(A)(3) of the legislation, which prescribed the sanction, could only be applied if the owner of the vehicle received the ticket or if it (the ticket) was affixed to the vehicle.
“The owner must be the offender to be liable for the traffic violation,” she said, as she noted that a driver who fails to pay their fine could have their driver’s permit suspended as a sanction.
She also noted that an unpaid traffic ticket could only have an effect on the vehicle that was used when it was issued.
“For instance, where the driver or owner has other vehicles registered in their name and those vehicles were not involved in the commission of the traffic violation, no sanctions can be attached to those vehicles,” she said.
“To allow the Licensing Authority to decide what property—other than that involved in the traffic violation—would go beyond the exercise of an administrative authority to aid the enforcement of the act,” she added.
Justice Quinlan-Williams issued a series of declarations against the policy including that Thomas’ constitutional rights to not be deprived of his property except by due process of law, and to equality before and protection of the law had been infringed. She also ruled that the policy applied in the case was unfair, illegal and irrational.
Dealing with compensation for Thomas, Justice Quinlan-Williams stated that $12,600 would suffice with the declarations granted.
“The court did not find any aggravating factors. Rather the potential damages were mitigated based on the rapidity with which the defendants corrected their error and admitted the wrong,” she said.
She also pointed out the policy, introduced by an amendment to the legislation in 2017, was relatively new when it was unfairly applied to Thomas.
“The introduction of an entirely new system geared towards improving the enforcement of traffic offences with the ultimate goal of reducing traffic violations is one that ought to be applauded,” she said. The State was also ordered to pay Thomas’ legal costs for the lawsuit.
Thomas was represented by Kent Samlal, Jayanti Lutchmedial, Natasha Bisram, Robert Abdool-Mitchell, and Vishaal Siewsaran.
