The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to drive in a marked lane contrary to section 154(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.
The appeal raised two grounds: (1) whether the Justice of the Peace had a duty to inquire if the appellant required interpreter services, and (2) whether the Justice of the Peace should have inquired into the suitability of an adjournment given that disclosure was provided on the trial date.
The court dismissed the appeal, finding that no inquiry into interpreter services was required as the appellant had completed the Notice of Intention without requesting an interpreter and conducted the trial in English without apparent difficulty.
While the court acknowledged that providing disclosure on the trial date presents procedural concerns, it found that the Justice of the Peace appropriately addressed the issue by permitting a recess for the appellant to review the disclosure and determine how to proceed.
