THE Court of Appeal has reserved its decision in an appeal brought by a suspended driver who challenged the legality of the demerit point system.
Zachary De Silva, whose driver’s permit was suspended for six months after he allegedly amassed ten points, appealed Justice Frank Seepersad’s dismissal of his judicial review claim in February.
In his decision, Seepersad held that an appeal of a decision of the transport commissioner to suspend a person’s driver’s licence must be done at the Appeal Court and not the High Court.
De Silva received a fixed-date penalty notice in May 2020 for driving with a cellphone. He received two more tickets in July and September for breaching a traffic sign and because his front-seat passenger was not wearing a seatbelt.
He paid the penalties and thought as a result, he would not get demerit points. He was told he had accumulated ten demerit points, and of the intention to suspend his permit, and was invited to respond. He did so within the statutory period under the legislation.
Although dismissing De Silva’s claim, Seepersad found the legislation regarding a driver’s avenue to appeal the decision of the transport commission to be poorly drafted.
The judge referred to Section 9 of the Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Act which stated that a person disqualified from holding a permit may appeal to “a court of competent jurisdiction.”
Seepersad said while the act made reference to a “court” and “court of competent jurisdiction” these terms were not adequately defined in any part of it.
“In the discharge of its obligation to determine the appropriate forum under section 88M(9) of the 2017 Act, the court noted that a pivotal purpose of the amendment was to remove many traffic matters away from the magistrates’ court which enjoyed almost exclusive jurisdiction over same.
“Against such a backdrop, the court asked itself, ‘Why would Parliament now place an additional burden on the high court, while at the same time streamlining the procedure in order to reduce the number of traffic matters going before the summary courts?’”
At the virtual hearing of the appeal on Thursday, De Silva’s attorney Christophe Rodriguez said section 88M (9) did not say which court had the jurisdiction to hear appeals and a “court of competent jurisdiction” had to be interpreted as the high court, leaving the Court of Appeal without jurisdiction to hear a challenge.
He said there was a clearly defined right of appeal to the appellate court of a decision of a magistrate, when a traffic offence is challenged in the summary courts, but this did not apply in the appeal of a decision of the commissioner.
Attorney Ravindra Nanga, who appeared for the State, argued that section 88M(9) had to be read as the Court of Appeal being the “court of competent jurisdiction” referred to.
He agreed with Seepersad that the drafting of the section was poorly done, saying it was “unfortunate,” but maintained it was the courts to interpret t
