Two defendants appealed convictions for driving while under suspension.
Both claimed they did not receive notice of suspension from the Ministry of Transportation.
The trial justices of the peace convicted both defendants despite not rejecting their testimony that they did not receive notice.
The appellate court held that where a defendant testifies credibly that they did not know of the suspension and did not receive notice, it will seldom be the case that they fail to meet the due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities unless the justice of the peace rejects their evidence or provides cogent reasons for doing so.
The court emphasized that administrative efficiency cannot override the protection of the morally innocent from conviction.
