Ambrose J:

In this case the appellant was charged with permitting another person to use a motor vehicle whilst there was not in force in relation to the user of the motor vehicle such a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Ordinance 1960, an offence against s. 3 (1) and punishable under s. 3 (2) of the Ordinance. He pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced to a fine of $75 and disqualified for holding a driving licence limited to Class III vehicles for a period of twelve months.

In my judgment, the Magistrate should not have accepted the plea of guilty in view of the following considerations. The appellant was not represented by Counsel. The question of law whether or not there was in force in relation to the user of the motor vehicle such a policy of insurance as complied with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Ordinance 1960, was a difficult one for a person universed in the law to answer. The Magistrate could not safely convict solely on an admission of guilt by the appellant. The prosecution should have been called upon to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was not in force in relation to the user of the motor vehicle at the material time such a policy of insurance as complied with the statutory requirements. I accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence and the order of disqualification and ordered the fine of $75 paid by the appellant to be refunded.

Order accordingly.