R v Austin (Nicholas) [1996]

FACTS:

The appellant took a motorcycle without permission and was uninsured.  The Defendant was seen by police officers riding at 120mph on a motorway.  A refused to stop and when two police vehicles were set up in the carriageway in an attempt to slow the Defendant down as a result of his dangerous driving he caused an accident and damaged a police car owned by a county council and not insured by any third party.  The damage caused was to the extent of £3462.

The Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicle-taking under s.12A of the Theft Act 1968 and to dangerous driving under s.2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. 

The Crown Court when considering the compensation for the damage caused to the police car, ordered the appellant to pay £3,462 compensation, the cost of the damage to the car. The Defendant appealed against the amount of the compensation order.

On the appeal, the question put to the court was whether the Crown Court had jurisdiction to make a compensation order in excess of £175 in the light of s.35(3)(b)(ii) of the Powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1973 and of clause 2(3)(4); and clause 6(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Compensation of Victims of Uninsured Drivers) Agreement 1988. 

 HELD:

The appeal was allowed as the claim related to damage caused not to the property taken or stolen but to the police car.  The provisions of s.35(2) and s.35(3)(a) of the 1973 Act did not apply, therefore, the court’s power to order compensation was under s.35(3)(b) of that Act.  Since the Motor Insurers’ Bureau agreement was an arrangement to which the Secretary of State was a party within s.35(3)(b)(ii) the damage was damage in respect of which, save for the first £175, compensation was payable to the county council as owner of the police car. 

Under clause 2 of the agreement, unless there was some relevant exclusion in the agreement that, the police car not being insured by any third party, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau would have no defence under clause 2(3) or 6(1)(c) of the agreement to a claim.  Clause 6(1)(a) and (b) related not to the damaged vehicle but to the vehicle causing the damage and neither had any application to the case.  Therefore without there being no other potential exclusion of liability, the court had no jurisdiction to make the order made.  The compensation order was quashed and an order for £175 was substituted.

No related posts.