386 SAINT VINCENT, TUESDAY, 18 DECEMBER, 1951.-(No. 66).


in a manner dangerous to the public The evidence of the two Police wit-
contrary to section 47(1) of the Motor nesses that gave evidence for the pro-
Vehicles and Road. Traffic Ordinance, secution in this matter admittedly dis-
1940 (No. 20 of 1940). closed that when the appellant passed
 At the outset learned Counsel for the allegedly driving in a manner dangerous
appellant abandoned the first ground of to the public, he was not then stopped
appeal, namely :-that the decision was and warned; but that it was sometime
unwarranted by the evidence, and the subsequent on the same day when the
only ground of appeal argued before appellant was returning from the direc-
this Court was that the evidence ad- tion in which he had proceeded, that he
duced for the prosecution, i.e. the was stopped by the Police and warned
respondent, disclosed that the Police that he would be prosecuted. It is not
had failed to comply with the provisions suggested that at the time of his being
of section 50 of the Motor Vehicles and warned the appellant was then driving
Road Traffic Ordinance, 1940 No. 20 of in a manner dangerous to the public or,
1940) and consequently the conviction for that matter, committing any offence
of the appellant could not stand. whatsoever.
 Section 50 of the said Ordinance The learned Magistrate in his Reasons
reads as follows for Decision after pointing out that the
 "Where a person is prosecuted for submission made under this ground of
 an offence under any of the preceding appeal was not raised before him at the
 sections relating respectively to the trial, went on to state he considered that
 maximum speed at which motor vehi- the Police having warned the appellant
 cles may be driven, to reckless or of an intended prosecution on the after-
 dangerous driving and to careless noon of the same day of the commission
 driving he shall not be convicted un- of the offence, that was sufficient to
 less either :- meet the requirements of section 50 of
 (a) he was warned at the time the the said Ordinance.
 offence was committed that the It was also submitted by Counsel for
 question of prosecuting him for an the respondent that in considering this
 offence under some one or other of matter one must look at the spirit and
 the sections aforesaid would be intention of the provisions of the rele-
 taken into consideration ; or vant section; that the purpose of the
 (b) within 14 days of the com- required warning is merely that the
 mission of the offence a summons person to be prosecuted should know as
 for the offence was served on him ; soon as possible the offence with which
 or he is to be chargelI and not be taken by
 (c) within the said 14 <iavs a surprise ;and that in this case the warn-
 notice of tiw intended I prosecution ing was given in sufficient time to bring
 specifying the nature of the alleged the alleged offence to the mind of the
 offence and the time and place appellant.
 where it is alleged to have been It was further submitted that, accord-
 committed was served or sent by ing to the Police evidence, an attempt
 registered post to him or to the was made to stop the appellant at the
 person registered as the owner of time of the alleged commission of the
 the vehicle at the time of the cor- offence; that the failure to do so was due
 mission of the offence : to the fact that he was driving too fast;
 Provided that_ and that therefore the appellant by his
 Provde( wt own conduct contributed to such failure.
 (i) failure to comply with this It is a cardinal rule of construction
 requirement shall not be a bar to that the Legislature must be taken to
 Ihe conviction o0 the accused in ean what it has plainly expressed and
 any case where the Corrt is satis- where it hai used words in a statute that
 flel that- are plain and unambiguous, they are to
 (a) neither the name and address be given their ordinary and grammatical
 of the accused nor the name and meaning. (See Maxwell on the Inter-
 address of the registered owner of predation of Statutes, 6th Ed., p.3 et seq.)
 the vehicle could with reasonable In this cese, section 50 of the Ordinance
 *diligence have been' ascertained in prescribes that the warning is to be given
 time for a summons to be served or at the time the offence was committed. As
 for a notice to be served or sent as learned Counsel for the appellant very
 aforesaid or properly argued, if a warning given
 (b) the accused by his own con- sometime subsequent to the commission
 duct contributed to the failure : and of the offence on tihe same day is deemed
 (ii) the requirement of this to meet this provision, why not sometime
 section shall in every case be the next da y or the day after.
 deemed to have been complied To turn to the second submission
 with unless and until the con- male on behalf of the respondent to the
 trary is proved." effect that the appellant by his conduct