Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Magistrates Court of Fiji

State v Prasad [2013] FJMC 113; Traffic Case 6399.2012 (15 March 2013)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT NAVUA

Traffic Case : 6399/2012

STATE

VS

ASHNIL PRASAD

For Prosecution : Sgt. Lenaitasi
For Accused : In person

Date of Hearing : 13 March 2013
Date of Judgment : 15 March 2013

Judgment

[1] The accused was charged with the offence of Careless Driving contrary to section 99(1) and 114 of Land Transport Authority Act No. 35 of 1998.

[2] The accused waived right to counsel and pleaded not guilty for the charge on 26 Nov 2012.

[3] During the hearing the prosecution called 02 police officers and the accused gave sworn evidence. Both parties did not file closing submissions.

Summary of Evidence

[4] PW1, PC krisneel was the booking officer. He said on 23 Aug 2012 he was doing booking under Navua Bridge with PW2 and saw a truck coming in the road. Suddenly it stopped in the middle of the road and without putting any signal it turned to the right. At that time there were some vehicles coming from the opposite direction and there was a nearly collision. The PW1 went to the vehicle and booked the driver for Careless Driving. PW1 identified the accused as the driver. In cross examination also PW1 stated that the accused did not give any indication before turning.

[5] PW2, Cpl Ram Prasad was also there on that day. He also said the accused did not give any signal before turning right and there was nearly an accident. The accused did not cross examine PW2.

[6] The prosecution closed the case after that and being satisfied with the evidences, I gave the accused his rights under section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Decree. The accused opted to give sworn evidence.

[7] The accused said on that day he gave signal before turning and denied driving dangerously. He held the same position in cross examination.

The Law

[08] The accused was charged for the offence of Careless driving contrary to section 99(1) and 114 of the LTA. Section 99 (1) states:-

A person who drives a motor vehicle on a public street without due care and attention commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the prescribed penalty

[09] The test for careless driving is stated in the case of Khan v State, High Court of Fiji Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1994 (21 October, 1994) as follows:

"In order to determine whether the offence of careless driving is committed, the test, as LORD GODDARD C.J. said in SIMPSON v PEAT (1952 1 AER 447 at p.449) is: "was D exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent driver would exercise in the circumstances?"

The standard of proof is an objective one . . ." (As cited in State v Lovo [2009] FJMC 7; Traffic Case 31.2009 (24 September 2009)

[10] The burden is on the prosecution to prove the case. In Woolminton v DPP [1935] Viscount Sankey L.C stated that 'no matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused, is part of the common law. Where the burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout the trial, in that circumstance, the accused need only to raise sufficient evidence to cast reasonable doubt on the issue.

Analysis of Evidence.

[11] I am satisfied with the prosecution's evidences in this case. The PW1 and PW2 both stated that the accused stopped suddenly and without giving any signal turned right. I do not see any reason for these officers to lie to the Court.

[12] Even though the Accused denied that I am not satisfied with his demeanor. He just denied the offence. He also did not call any other witnesses to corroborate his version nor gave any reason for prosecution's witnesses to implicate him for this offence.

[13] Therefore I hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed this offence.

[14] Accordingly I find the accused guilty for the offence and convict him for that.

[15] 28 days to appeal

15 March 2013

H.S.P.Somaratne
Resident Magistrate