Page 151 - 5. 2015 New 26-05-21 No Table

THE Thank y What you do have — the height of the
RECORDER: Crown’s case would be the admission that the — by
Mr Cordell that he said at the start “I’m just going to
work”. That’s the height of the Crown’s case. In my
submission, you cannot rely on that being an accurate
and truthful note of the conversation that he -- because
of the credibility issues concerning the one witness
who gives that evidence. So taking a step back, can the
Crown prove beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence
we’ve heard already that — I know that’s not the test
at this stage but applying the correct test at this stage,
the half-time test, could a reasonable -- could a
reasonable tribunal properly directed convict on the
evidence that they’ve heard?
ou. Mr Pottinger?
MR What do you say about the burden of proof in relation
KENNEDY: to this offence not for the half-time submission but for
the end of the day?
THE (Inaud The evidence is that the defendant was there
RECORDER: with Dean Reid, according to the officer in clothing
consistent with work in a vehicle in a condition
although without tools consistent with being used for
work, with a number of business cards containing the
names Dean and Simon, the two persons in that van,
advertising a business in provision of general repairs,
painting decorating, man and van removals, cleaning,
property maintenance services. So, the Crown say that
there’s an obvious inference there. Simon and Dean
were in a van together, there’s a card saying Simon
and Dean, general jobs - nothing to do with the motor
trade because that would be covered by the use - in a
van, consistent with it being used for odd jobs, in
clothing consistent with being used with odd jobs and
— and an admission at the start.ible).
MR On the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
POTTINGER: there was no policy in force?
THE Well, no. No, it’s not. It’s for the defendant to prove
RECORDER: on the balance of probabilities there was no policy in
force for the use of that vehicle.
MR Sorry, for the defendant to prove
POTTINGER:
THE It’s for the defendant — sorry, for the defendant to
RECORDER: prove on
29
245,
MR the balance of probabilities. It’s really a question of the
POTTINGER: use of the vehicle and the nature of the use. So the
THE It all comes down to the use, doesn’t it?
RECORDER: