using a motor vehicle without insurance

[strugglingwi]

ISection 143 of the RTA states; "...a person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section [this section being the requirement to be insured for third party risks] shall not be convicted if he proves (a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not under a contract of hiring or of loan (b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and (c) the he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance..." What does (a) mean if people can still be charged for having no insurance and still be convicted even if the vehicle did not belong to them. It states that you will not be convicted if he proves that (a) the vehicle did not belong to him. I dont understand this can someone explain to me

[kempie]

The statutory defence provided by section 143(3) RTA is in relation to a driver who unwittingly drives his employer's uninsured vehicle. The driver cannot be convicted if all three conditions are true...

not his vehicle AND used during work AND did not know insurance cover was not in place.

[Ethel]

Kempie is quite correct.

Parts a, b and c must be read together. In the circumstances where a person was driving his employer's vehicle in the course of his employment and believed the vehicle was insured, the employer will be prosecuted, not the driver.