[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] [Report an error] [F.A.Q.] Supreme Court of Nauru

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Nauru >> 1975 >> [1975] NRSC 6

[Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]

Bill v Republic [1975] NRSC 6; [1969-1982] NLR (D) 35 (27 January 1975)

[1969-1982] NLR (D) 35

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAURU

Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1975

JOHN COLE BILL

v.

THE REPUBLIC

27th January, 1975.

Motor Traffic Act 1937-1973 - section 21(3) (b) - mandatory suspension of driving licence - power of the District Court to allow driving on duty.

Appeal against suspension of the appellant's driving licence consequent upon his conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Suspension is mandatory but the appellant sought the inclusion of a condition enabling him to drive in the course of his work.

Held: If the District Court has power to include such a condition by virtue of paragraph (b) of section 21(3), it should not do so simply because the suspension causes the offender inconvenience.

A. Iwugia for the appellant
J.H. Berriman for the respondent

Thompson CJ:

Section 21(3) (b) of the Motor Traffic Act 1937-1973 has been used by the District Court in the past to allow persons employed as drivers to continue to drive on duty while their licences were suspended. That paragraph is capable of being construed as giving power to the Courts to do that and there may be exceptional circumstances in which it is appropriate for the Courts to do it. However, it is a power which must be used very sparingly, in exceptional cases, and not simply where the suspension will inconvenience the offender. The order is intended to inconvenience him and so bring him to his senses; as to his responsibilities as a, driver.

Distances in Nauru are not great; a person could go right round the island on a bicycle in less than one hour. There can be no question of the order depriving the appellant of his ability to earn his living in the employment in which he earned it before the conviction. He is, therefore, not suffering any real hardship as the result of the order, only the type of inconvenience which the law intends should be suffered by persons convicted of driving under the influence of drink.

The appeal is dismissed.