Page 133 - 5. 2015 New 26-05-21 No Table

THE There is a policy in existence. There must be.
RECORDER:
MR Yes.
POTTINGER:
THE And the policy should set out the details of this
RECORDER: certificate.
Q And the Crown should be able to look at that policy
and say Yes or No to the proposition that’s being put
forward or “We will make enquiries”. Let’s say, for
the sake of example, Mr Cordell had run into the back
of a police car and dented it and the insurance
company had said “You weren’t covered because of
what you were or weren’t doing” then we know where
we are. What we don’t know at the moment is what the
insurance company say about what he was doing at the
time on D his version of events. And without knowing
that, how can we know whether he was covered or not
just on the basis of a certificate of motor insurance
which is not the full policy which may say or may
explain whether or not he is? That -- that’s my real
concern about this. I — I think this — this situation is
— is
MR I can’t take an unfair advantage and I wouldn’t seek to.
KENNEDY: The Crown — well, they had the advantage at the
lower — at the lower court
THE Exactly, yes.
RECORDER:
MR of knowing what the position is. But it’s the Crown to -
KENNEDY: - it’s the Crown to prove the -- that the -- well,
(Inaudible), I suppose.
THE I — I am unhappy about proceeding without input,
RECORDER: proper input, from KGM. That’s the bottom line. You
need it and you need it and it should have been done.
MR Well, I have the hearsay evidence. I’m not sure that I
KENNEDY: do
THE Yes.
RECORDER:
need it for — for this reason. If it’s — the burden is on
the
A Crown. Once you’ve got a prima facie valid
insurance document, which we have
10
227,
MR A Thank you.
KENNEDY:
MR It was -- (To Mr Kennedy) I can lead on the date and
POTTINGER: time? Is that right?

MR Yes.
KENNEDY: