Naresh v Millard

Naresh was convicted in the Magistrates' Court of failing to wear a seatbelt. The applicant appealed against the conviction, arguing that he experienced significant feelings of claustrophobia when wearing a seatbelt, as evidenced by a certificate from a medical practitioner. The appeal was dismissed, and the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The legal issues before the court were whether the certificate from the medical practitioner was sufficient to establish a defence under regulation 232(2) of the Road Traffic Code 2000 and whether the applicant had an arguable ground of appeal.

The court found that the certificate was not sufficient to establish a defence under regulation 232(2) as it did not address the applicant's ability to wear a seatbelt at the time of the offence. The court held that the regulation required a certificate from a medical practitioner stating that the applicant was unable to wear a seatbelt due to a physical condition, and the certificate in this case only addressed the applicant's feelings of claustrophobia. The court also found that the applicant did not have an arguable ground of appeal as the certificate did not establish a defence under the regulation, and the conviction was properly based on the evidence presented at the trial.

The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal, holding that there was no arguable ground of appeal. The court found that the certificate from the medical practitioner did not establish a defence under regulation 232(2) of the Road Traffic Code 2000, and the conviction was properly based on the evidence presented at the trial. The court held that the applicant's feelings of claustrophobia did not amount to a physical condition that prevented him from wearing a seatbelt, and the certificate did not address his ability to wear a seatbelt at the time of the offence. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the certificate was sufficient to establish a defence under the regulation, and the conviction was properly based on the evidence presented at the trial.