IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT SUVA

Traffic Case No.676 of 2006

STATE

V

RADILAITE LELE SIVOKI

Before Ajmal Gulab Khan Esq
Resident Magistrate

Date of Hearing: 18/12/07
Date of Judgment: 16/01/08

Prosecution: DPP Ms Tuiketei
Accused: Mr. Valenitabua 

JUDGMENT

The accused has been charged with dangerous driving under S98 (1) and S114 and for driving motor vehicle with excessive alcohol contrary to S103 and S114 of the Land Transport Act CAP 35.

The Prosecution called five witnesses and the accused gave sworn evidence in her defence.

Particulars are:

Count 1: Dangerous Driving:

Radilaite Lele Sivoki on the 23rd day of August 2006 at Suva in the Central Division, drove a motor vehicle registration number ET247 at Ratu Mara Road in a manner which was dangerous to the public having regards to the circumstances of the case.

Count 2:	Driving motor vehicle whilst there is present in the blood a concentration of alcohol in excess of the prescribed limit:

Radilaite Lele Sivoki on the 23rd day of August 2006 at Suva in the Central Division, drove a motor vehicle registration number ET247 at Ratu Mara road, Nabua whilst there was present in 100ml of her blood a concentration of 173.8mili grams of alcohol which was in excess of the prescribed limit.]
‘b890okjbvcuytr	lkjbvcxz;lkjhgfdz12290OK;LNB 

I have considered whole of the evidence.

The accused in her sworn statement in court has said she "had 3 bottles of beer at a family function and was on the road". She said "my vehicle veered to the right side of my lane and caused accident.

In her examination in Chief she said "I was careless so collided."

The issue is was the driving dangerous?

I find it as a fact that the accused went to a family function. Drank 3 long neck bottles of beer. She was staggering after accident and smelt of liquor. Despite above she chose to drive on public road. She veered off the road into another lane and collided into an oncoming vehicle.

The Prosecution witness in particular the complainant’s evidence has been corroborated by the accused herself.

It is the accused who created the danger on the road in all circumstances of the case. A prudent driver would not have driven after excessive drinking at a function.

The defence contested the timing stating it was 1.40 am at the time of accident and the dragger test time was incorrect. I accept the evidence of the complainant and the arresting officer as to the time of accident.

The dragger machine strips states 0.38 as the correct time of conclusion of the testing.

The defence further tried to insinuate ill-feeling between the arresting officers and the accused. She alleged his proposal was refused by her so he was revengeful against the accused.

In view of other evidence before court I do accept this argument holds any water in favour of the accused.

She veered off her lane and caused an accident.

I find the prosecution case proved and find her guilty on this count.

Count 2:	Driving with excessive alcohol.

It is not disputed that after accident corporal Mitieli came to the scene. He identified the driver as a police officer. He said he went to the scene at 10 minutes past midnight. He arrested the accused and escorted her to the Central Police Station for a test in the dragger 7110 machine. He said he conducted the test at 12.38 am. The result was 173.8 mg/100 of blood which was excessive. The certificate and the print out has been tendered as exhibits 425 as evidence.

There is physical evidence and admission of drinking by the accused. The dragger test shows a positive result which is in excess of the required level of alcohol in her breath and blood.

I accept the prosecution witnesses as true and correct.

I find the prosecution has proved its charges beyond reasonable doubt and find the accused guilty on both counts.

Dated this on the 16th day of January 2008.

Ajmal Gulab Khan
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE