Sturge: Withdraw Traffic Bill

Saying he had read the Attorney General’s contribution to the debate on the bill in the Hansard, Senator Sturge said that the bill would cause chaos, mayhem and confusion and doesn’t take account of the practices and procedures in the local magistrate’s court.

He said those who chose to contest violations will be punished in some way, noting that the bill states that the State has to prove the offence on a balance of probabilities. However, he said this was not the criminal standard which was that the State must bear the burden of the proof and the standard of proof in criminal matters was “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Sturge said that in amending the bill one would be dealing with behaviours which cause death and serious bodily injury as well as serious damage to property.

Looking at the procedures to be adopted, he said that under the act the owner could be deprived of his vehicle without due process.

For example, he said a police officer can affix a notice to the vehicle but wondered what would be the owner’s position if someone removed the notice or if it is simply blown off the vehicle.

According to Sturge, the bill would limit the accused person to two defences, that the vehicle was stolen or that he was not the owner, but he said this violated many Constitutional issues, adding that in criminal law one is liable for the acts they commit but under the proposed legislation one might become liable for something done by someone else if they were unable to fit themselves into the two defences allowed.

He added that if the accused did not attend court the matter could be heard without his presence and said the accused did not get a chance to plead and the police officer is not obligated to attend the court either. He said this represented two violations of the fair hairing rule, in this case the only way for the accused person to defend himself would be to go into the box and give evidence, risking incriminating himself.

Sturge said that in Trinidad everyone has the right to silence, but if the police officer who laid the charge did not attend the hearing then this could be the only option left open to the accused person.