IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT AT NASINU

Traffic Case No. 13287/2011

STATE

-v-

RAMESH KUMAR

Police Prosecutor J.F. Raymond for the prosecution 
The accused appeared in person

JUDGMENT

1] The accused charged with following offence, namely;

CHARGE:

Statement of Offence [a]

INCONSIDERATE DRIVING: Contrary to Section 99 (1) and 114 of Land Transport Act 35 of 1998.

Particulars of Offence [b]

RAMESH KUMAR, on 14.12.11 at Tamavua in the Central Division drove a bus on Kings Road Dokomaisuva without due consideration to other users of the road. 

2] He pleaded not guilty to the charge and trial proceeded on 14th January 2013. At the hearing the prosecution called one witness.

3] This witness is PC 2594, Josefa Rakeseta. He said that on 14-12-2011, he was on traffic duty. His shift was 6am to 6pm and he was patrolling on Kings Road, Princesses Road, Mead Road, Cunningham, Khalsa and Ratu Dovi Roads. At 4.53pm, he was on Princesses Road and entering Khalsa Road, he heard vehicles were tooting. He saw one bus which was stopped in the middle of the road dropping passengers. There was no bus stop and it was still further. He then, put the siren and went to the driver. He questioned the driver. It was Tacirua Bus and Registration number was DQ 266. He issued TIN to the driver. The witness identified the accused in open court. 

3] In the cross examination the witness said that he could not book the driver at Princesses Road. The witness said the accused obstructed other road users. The prosecution closed the case. The accused was explained right to call defence as the court held there was case to answer. 

4] The accused opted to give sworn evidence. The accused, Ramesh Kumar gave evidence as follows; "I was on Princesses Road, going towards New Town. It was drizzling; booking officer was standing at Chinese shop. I stopped and turned on Princesses Road, and then I came towards Khalsa Road. I also dropped some passengers in Lakhendra Singh Road. There was no bus stops on Khalsa road about 200 metres away from first bus stop. While I was dropping the passengers at Lakhendra Singh Road the police officer came in front of me. He informed that I was inconsiderate driving. I was not obstructing any vehicle… on Khalsa Road there are 6 legal bus stops, but 7000 to 6000 people live in Khalsa Road" 

5] In cross examination, the accused admitted that he dropped passengers before bus stop. He further said "if I don't stop the passengers spit on our faces". The accused further admitted that he was middle of the road when bus was stopped and it was before the bus stop. 

6] The accused closed his case. Judgment is fixed for today. 

7] The burden of proof is vested on the state in this matter and they should prove this charge beyond reasonable doubt. What is proof of beyond reasonable doubt is described in several cases.

8] In State v Seniloli [2004] FJHC 48; HAC0028.2003S (5 August 2004) Her Ladyship Justice Nazhat Shameem told to assessors (summing up);

"The standard of proof in a criminal case is one of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This means that you must be satisfied so that you feel sure of the guilt of the accused persons before you express an opinion that they are guilty. If you have any reasonable doubt as to whether the accused persons committed the offence charged against each of them on the Information, then it is your duty to express an opinion that the accused are not guilty. It is only if you are satisfied so that you feel sure of their guilt that you must express an opinion that they are guilty. One of the defence counsel asked you if you had the slightest doubt about the accused's guilt. That is not the correct test. The correct test is whether you have any reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused."

9] In State v Tuiloa [2008] FJHC 251; HAC003.2007 (24 June 2008) Justice Jocelynne A. Scutt in Her Ladyship's summing up said;

 "The question then is what the standard of proof is. That is, when the onus rests on the State as it does here and generally in criminal trials, what is the standard the State must meet? The State must prove all the necessary ingredients of the charge.... beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt means what it says. You must be sure; you must be satisfied of guilt, before you can express an opinion about it. Only if you are sure, if you are satisfied beyond reasonable doublet of guilt, then it is your duty to say so. If you are not sure, not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must give your opinion that the accused is not guilty. This assessment, this determination, rests with you – with each of you – upon your individual assessment of the evidence." (Emphasis is mine) 

 10] The Land Transport act describes the offence. Section 99 says;

"99. - (1) 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. (This is offence of Careless Driving)

(2) A person who drives a motor vehicle on a public street without due consideration for other persons using the public street (including but not limited to, driving at an unreasonably slow speed) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the prescribed penalty."(This is offence of Inconsiderate Driving) 

11] The Penalty is mentioned in section 114 of the LTA are as follows; 

"99(2)	Inconsiderate driving	$500/3 months, and 3 demerit points."	

12] The accused is charge with second limb of section 99 of LTA. The ingredients and the facts of the charge are as follows; 

a) a person( the accused) 

b) drives a motor vehicle on a public street( drove a bus on Khalsa Road) 

c) without due consideration for other persons using the public street ( The accused stopped the bus and dropped the passenger in the middle of road which is not the bus stop)

13] The booking officer said the other vehicles were blocked and they tooted horn. The accused admits that he stop the bus at the middle. The accused stopped the bus and dropped the passenger in the middle of road which is not the bus stop. This is inconsiderate driving. The booking officer no reason to tell lies to this court. On the other hand the accused's defence is unclear, but he said that the Khalsa road is very busy place surrounded with 6000 to 7000 people. It s densely populated area. But this is not an excuse him to stop the bus at passengers' demand. He further said if they do not stop the passengers will spite on their faces. This is not an excuse to stop the bus at passengers' choices, if they do so that is a criminal offence as well and accused can take legal action. For the sake of the passengers the accused cannot commit an offence. I therefore hold the prosecution has proved its charges beyond reasonable doubt. 

14] The accused is convicted as charged. 

15] 28 days to appeal

On 08th April 2013, at Nasinu, Fiji Islands

Sumudu Premachandra [Mr.]
Resident Magistrate-Nasinu