18/10/1948

OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (INFERIOR)

HARDING WILLIAM

THE POLICE vs COMMANDER JOHN LYONS, R.N.

N/A

-

N/A

ENABLING LAW - EVIDENCE AS TO EXCESSIVE SPEED - PENALTY - SEC. 45 AND 102 OF THE MOTOR TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, AND SEC. 16 AND 17 OF THE MOTOR TRAFFIC REGULATIONS ORDINANCE (CH. 105 REV. ED.) - SUSPENSION OF THE DRIVING LICENCE - TRAFFIC

Her Maltese Law, the question as to whether a driver has been driving at an excessive speed is one of credibility and sufficiency of evidence; and there is no provision of law requiring that there besomething more than the opinion of one witness. Anyone who observes a vehicle in motion is entitledto give his estimate of its speed. The true that reg. 45 of the Motor Traffic Regulations states that any Court, in the case of a person convicted of an offence under those Regulations, may suspendhis driving licence for any period not exceeding one month, and that the offence of driving at an excessive speed is an offence which falls under those Regulations; but the Motor Traffic Regulations were enacted under section 16 of the Traffic Regulation Ordinance (Ch.105 ot the Revises Edition), section 17 whereof empowers the Court, in the case of an offence against the Regulations enacted undersection 16 of the same Ordinance; to suspend the driving licence for a period not less than eight days and not more that three months. And as any regulation enacted under on enabling law cannot go beyound it, and any such regulations is "pro tanto" "ultra vives", and consequently void and of no effort, the Court is quite competent to suspend the driving licence for a period exceeding one month,in the case of an offence for driving at an exessive speed, notwithstanding the said regulation 45 which prescribes a period not exceeding one month for such an offence. Moreover, the punishment applicable in the case of an offence of excessive speed is that envisaged in section 17 (1) of Chapter 105, which mentions the punishments laid down for contraventions in the Criminal Code, which do not include the fine "multa", but the fine "ammenda": wherefor, if a pecuniary punishment is decided on by the Court, the latter cannot apply a fine "multa", but only a fine "ammenda".