Rigby J (delivering oral judgment):

I am satisfied that this appeal must be dismissed. The appellant was convicted of using his motor car for a purpose other than the purpose for which the licence was granted, contrary to the provisions of s. 22(2) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1958. He was further convicted under the second charge of using the vehicle in circumstances in which there was not in force in relation to the use of the motor vehicle a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks, contrary to the provisions of s. 74 of the Road Traffic Ordinance. The nature of the second charge and the conviction arose really as a direct result of the commission of the offence in respect of the first charge.

The appellant is a fruit and vegetable vendor. On the day in question he was stopped by the police with his motor vehicle filled to capacity with quantities of fruit - bananas and water melons. It was abundantly clear - nor is it, indeed, in any way disputed - that he was carrying the fruit for the purpose of his trade as a fruit and vegetable vendor. The vehicle which he was driving at the time and in which the fruit was being carried was, in fact, licensed as a private passenger vehicle. The appellant's certificate of insurance was also produced in evidence. It provided as follows:

Limitations as to Use:

Use only for social, domestic and pleasure purposes and for the Insured's business. The Policy does not cover use for hire or reward, racing, pace-making, reliability trial, speed-testing, the carriage of goods other than samples in connection with any trade or business or use for any purpose in connection with the motor trade.

Under that clause, whilst the vehicle may properly be used by the Insured in connection with his business, the policy expressly. includes the carriage of goods other than samples in connection with such trade or business. The important point is that while he may, in general, use the car for the purposes of his business he must not carry in the car goods other than samples for use in connection with that business.

The main ground of appeal is that the learned Magistrate erred in law in holding that the licensing of a privately owned vehicle was limited to the carrying of passengers only and that he misdirected himself in holding that a vehicle licensed for private purposes had become a goods vehicle for commercial purposes by season of the fact that the appellant was carrying in that vehicle his own goods for sale by himself and not for sale or reward to any other person.

Now the first point that is apparent from the evidence is that the vehicle was, in fact, registered and licensed as a private passenger vehicle. Goods are defined in s. 2 of the Road Traffic Ordinance as:

Anything..... carried on or in a motor vehicle for the purposes of any trade or business........

Then follow a number of exceptions which are irrelevant for consideration in this case. The last of those exceptions exempts from the definition of goods for the purposes of the Ordinance:

Article carried by a person on or in the vehicle for use in the exercise of his trade, business or profession and not for sale.

A goods vehicle is defined in the Ordinance as:

"(a) any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods; and

(b) any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods solely or in addition to passengers;

but does not include a private motor car drawing a trailer for purposes unconnected with trade or business.

Section 98 of the Ordinance provides that:

Subject to the provisions of this Part of the Ordinance no person shall use a motor vehicle, or cause or permit a motor vehicle to be used, for the carriage of goods unless there is in force in respect of such vehicle a 6 valid carrier's licence granted under this Part of this Ordinance........

The different types of carrier's licenses are set out in s. 100 and a private carrier's license is there