Key Facts
- •Mr. de Silva received three fixed penalty notices for traffic violations and accumulated 10 demerit points, leading to a six-month driving disqualification by the Licensing Authority.
- •He appealed to the High Court, which found the Court of Appeal to be the correct forum.
- •The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision.
- •The issue before the Board is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted section 88M(9) of the Traffic Act (as amended), which governs appeals against demerit point disqualifications.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of statutes, particularly ambiguous phrases like "Court of competent jurisdiction."
Traffic Act (as amended), Section 88M(9)
Appellate jurisdiction of the High Court and Court of Appeal under the Trinidad and Tobago legal system.
Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Chap 1:01; Judicature Ordinance; Supreme Court of Judicature Act
Rules of statutory interpretation, including the presumption that identical wording in different sections of an Act should have the same meaning, and that different wording signifies different meanings. However, this presumption is rebuttable.
Bennion, Bailey and Norbury on Statutory Interpretation, 7th ed (2017), para 21.3; Re Omagh District Council [2007] NIQB 61; Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd (No 2) [2017] UKSC 23
Outcomes
The Board dismissed Mr. de Silva's appeal, affirming that the Court of Appeal is the correct forum for appeals under section 88M(9) of the Traffic Act.
The Court of Appeal's interpretation was consistent with the pre-amendment appellate structure for traffic offences and there was no clear indication in the Amending Act to change this.