Court overturns disqualification

The Court of Appeal last Friday upheld his three-year term of imprisonment, but ordered a ban on driving for 15 years instead of the disqualification for life he had received.

That sentence was imposed in February 2009 after a Grand Court jury found Carter guilty of causing the death of Glen “Papa Sleepy” Seymour. Mr. Seymour was walking at night in Bodden Town when he was struck by the van Carter was driving (Caymanian Compass, 4 March 2009).

Attorney Clyde Allen then argued against the additional penalty imposed – Carter had been prohibited from holding or obtaining a drivers licence for the rest of his life.

The Traffic Law requires a minimum disqualification of five years for causing death by dangerous or reckless driving. However, disqualification may be for “such longer period as the Court may think fit”.

In this case, the sentencing judge said Carter’s driving record was horrendous and the worst he had ever seen. Before the fatal accident, Carter had been disqualified from driving five times in seven years.

He was legally able to drive again in September 2006; the incident that led to Mr. Seymour’s death occurred in January 2007.

During his trial, jurors heard that Carter lost the sight in his left eye at age 10. He said he compensated by positioning his body or turning his head to increase his field of vision. When driving, “I try to stay in the middle of my lane.”

During the appeal, court president Sir John Chadwick referred to this fact. “It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that this accident occurred because he simply did not see the
pedestrian,” he commented.

Crown Counsel John Masters said there was an element of speculation in blaming Carter’s limited sight for the accident because this incident was not a one-off.

“If you can’t see, you shouldn’t be driving,” Sir John said.

Mr. Masters cited the Traffic Law and Traffic Regulations. The law says no person is qualified to drive a vehicle unless he is of the prescribed age and experience, is not disqualified, has
passed the relevant driving test and “is not disqualified from driving by reason of suffering from any relevant disability”.

Sir John asked, “Being blind in one eye is not a relevant disability?”

In the definition section of the Traffic Law, “relevant disability” in relation to any person means “any prescribed disability” and “any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him to be a source of danger to the public”.

Mr. Masters then referred to the regulation setting out 10 requirements for the passing of a driving test. The first is: “The applicant shall satisfy the examiner… that he can read in good daylight (with the aid of glasses if worn) a licence plate number fixed to a motor vehicle at a distance of 60 feet.”

Sir John noted that this requirement did not seem to take into account such conditions as tunnel vision.

Mr. Allen pointed out earlier that Carter had passed a driving test when he first received his licence.

He asked the court to consider the rehabilitative aspect of sentencing. “If prison serves any purpose at all, we would hope he has learned his lesson.” After Carter completes his sentence, he may not be able to work because all of his jobs as a plumber required him to
drive to various sites, Mr. Allen added.

Sir John asked if it were more important that Carter should be able to work or that people should be protected from him.

“We have no material before us to suggest you cannot get to work on this Island
without a car,” he pointed out.

Mr. Allen suggested a period of disqualification followed by a requirement to re-take the driving test.

Mr. Masters said disqualification from driving for life is a sentencing option in England
and Wales, but there is also provision for the person concerned to apply for a review
after a number of years. He pointed out that driving is a privilege, not a right.

After considering the matter with Justice Ian Forte and Justice Abdullah Conteh, Sir John announced the court’s decision and said reasons would be put into writing.