A Brighton man charged with using another man’s vehicle without permission has told the court that he did so because the man owed him for marijuana.
Last Thursday, Romano Farrell appeared at Colonarie Magistrate’s Court, sitting at Georgetown, charged with taking a conveyance, driving without a valid driver’s licence, and driving an uninsured motor vehicle.
Farrell told the court that he had bought cannabis from Conroy Edwards of Sandy Bay.
However, when Farrell inspected the illegal drug, he found it not to his satisfaction and demanded that Edwards supply him with a different portion of marijuana or refund him the EC$1,000.
Edwards told Farrell to meet him in Sandy Bay for the refund.
However, on his way to Sandy Bay last Monday, Farrell met Edwards at North Union and asked him for the money.
He further drove off with Edwards’ car.
Police in Calliaqua recovered the car in Prospect.
Farrell was handed over to the Colonairie Police Station and was charged.
He pleaded guilty to each of the charges.
For the taking of conveyance offence, Farrell was ordered to pay the court EC$400 in one month or spend four months in jail.
For driving without a valid licence, he was fined EC$250 to be paid forthwith, and was further barred from holding or obtaining a drivers licence for one year.
The man was fined EC$500 for driving an uninsured vehicle.
He paid the fines.
The owner of the conveyance should also be charged for driving an uninsured vehicle
Agreed, slack law enforcers!
In SVG, a vehicle automatically becomes uninsured if the driver does not have a valid driver’s licence. Therefore, when the plaintiff was driving the vehicle, to the extent that he had a valid driver’s licence, the vehicle is insured. When the defendant, who did not have a driver’s licence, drove it, the vehicle became uninsured.
The man basically admitted to also being involved with/ at one point having in his possession a controlled substance lol
Razie we have heard no evidence that the owner was uninsured. It is not the vehicle that is uninsured it is the person. The owner of the vehicle may well be insured to drive the vehicle, but someone taking that vehicle without permission is not insured.
G.T re-read your comment and see if it make any damn sense might as well you delete your comment because it makes you sound as though you are an idiot are you blind the vehicle is also uninsured what more evidence do they need no they can’t charged the other person because the police never catch him operating the uninsured vehicle even if the owner have a licence he still not suppose to operate the vehicle because it’s not insured it sound as if your saying that only if the person have a valid licence even if the vehicle is not insured he can operates the vehicle and it (the vehicle) will be insured smh…ppl needs to read before the post
Pure comedy lololol !!
I just wanted to say that the owner of the car didn’t get caught driving it so why he must be charged for it. And on the other hand the man the admit to his actions. So i think that the judge did well.
I just wanted to say that the judge did well