Page 129 - 5. 2015 New 26-05-21 No Table

and the answer is “Yes” then how can this court
adjudicate on this matter now in the absence of that
information?
Do you have that information? There’s a nodding going
on from behind you.

MR The information I have comes from the appellant
KENNEDY: himself regarding his version of the facts which is that
— his contention is that he was driving to go and see
somebody about

THE Yes.
RECORDER:
MR the possibility of future work.
KENNEDY:
THE Right. I appreciate that.
RECORDER:
MR And -- he spoke to his insurers
KENNEDY:
THE Yes.
RECORDER:
MR and asked whether he would be covered if that were the
KENNEDY: position
THE Right.
RECORDER:
MR to which the answer was Yes.
KENNEDY:
THE All right.
RECORDER:
MR I — I don’t believe he can contend that if he were using
KENNEDY: it as a tradesman for working - which is the Crown’s
position - that he would have been covered.
THE Right. So, he doesn’t contend that. But you’re saying
RECORDER: that in fact he has evidence of or he has hearsay
evidence of -1 don’t know which it is at the moment -
the fact that KGM say he would have been covered for
what he was doing at the time?
MR He does. And I don’t -- and I don’t think the Crown
KENNEDY: take issue with that.
THE All right.
RECORDER:
MR Having discussed the matter briefly with the Crown, it
KENNEDY: really is a question (Inaudible).
6
223,
THE Of what he was doing at the time. All right.
RECORDER:
MR Yes.
KENNEDY: