Rigby J:

This case was referred to me by the learned Magistrate with a view to a revision of the order made by him. Since the case is by no means free from difficulty I think it would be convenient if, before dealing with the nature of his application or request for revision, I set out the facts of the matter.

The defendant was charged with using a motor-car as a public service vehicle, when the vehicle was not licensed for such a purpose. As a necessary consequence of that charge he was also confronted with the more serious charge of using the car when there was not in force, in relation to its user, a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks.

The facts themselves were perfectly simple and straightforward. A lady in Prangin Road required a taxi to take her to Minden Barracks. She saw a row of motor-cars, parked unattended, which she assumed to be taxis. There was a group of men standing on the opposite side of the road. One of the men who was, in fact, the defendant approached her and inquired if she wanted a taxi. She replied in the affirmative. He moved up his vehicle and drove her to Minden Barracks. On arrival there, the car was stopped for checking by the Military guard at the gate. Apparently an Army Sergeant asked the defendant where his taxi plate was, to which he replied that he had not got one. The defendant was permitted to enter the gates and drive the lady to her destination. She was then charged the extremely reasonable and, I should have thought, wholly uneconomic fare of $2. That occurred on 28 September 1960. On the 16 December 1960, the defendant appeared in Court to answer to these two charges. The defendant is, in fact, the holder of vocational licence, issued under s. 133(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, authorising him to drive a public service vehicle, a taxi cab. His defence was that on this particular day his own taxi was being repaired. The lady stopped him and asked him to drive her to Minen Barracks and he agreed to do so. Evidence was given that, in fact, his taxi was being repaired that day. I am informed that although the defendant was at the material time the registered owner of the private car he was not, in fact, the owner of the taxi and was simply a hired driver. On the facts, the learned Magistrate very properly convicted him of both offences as charged and fined him $70 on the first Charge and $50 on the second Charge. Again, in respect of the second Charge the Magistrate very properly gave him an opportunity, through his Counsel, to put forward any special reasons as to why he should not be disqualified for the minimum period of 12 months in accordance with the mandatory provisions of s. 74(2) of the Ordinance. He was apparently satisfied that there were no such reasons existing and he accordingly disqualified him from holding or obtaining a license to drive a private car for a period of 12 months. In limiting the disqualification to the driving of a private motor-car the learned Magistrate was clearly acting under what he deemed to be the discretion vested in him by the proviso to s. 90(1) in limiting such disqualification "to the driving of a motor vehicle of the same class or description as the motor vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed". In limiting the disqualification to the driving of private motor-cars the Magistrate clearly intended that such disqualification should not interfere with the defendant's livelihood by depriving him of his licence to drive a taxi cab.

The practical difficulty which arises, however, is as to the consequential effect of the order made by the Magistrate. That difficulty arises for this reason: under s. 133(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance no person shall drive a public service vehicle - which, under s. 93(1), includes taxi cabs and hired cars - unless he is the holder of a "vocational licence" granted by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. Under s. 133(2) the Registrar shall not issue a vocational licence to drive a