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

State v Taito [2016] FJMC 27; Traffic Case 267.2014 (2 March 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

Traffic Case : - 267/2014

STATE

V

AISAKE JOSUA TAITO

For the Prosecution : PC Shaw
For the Accused : Ms.Malimali
Date of Hearing : 01st of March 2016
Date of Ruling : 02nd of March 2016

RULING ON NO CASE TO ANSWER

1. The accused is charged with one count of Dangerous Driving contrary to sections 98(1) and 114 of the LTA Act No 35 of 1998.
   
2. The Prosecution called only the complainant during the hearing and closed their case. Thereafter the defence made a ‘no case submission’ pursuant to section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Decree.
   
3. The learned counsel for the accused submitted in the court that the prosecution failed to provide evidence to satisfy essential elements of this offence and also the evidence is not credible for this court to consider.
   
4. Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Decree provides:
   

“if at the close of the evidence in support of the charge it appears to the court that a case is not made out against the accused person sufficiently to require him or her to make a defence, the court shall dismiss the case and shall acquit the accused”.

5. The applicable test in Magistrate Courts was discussed in State V Aiyaz [ 2009] FJHC 186 where his Lordship Justice Goundar said :
   

“ The test for no case to answer in the Magistrates’ Court under section 210 is adopted from the Practice Direction, issued by the Queen’s Bench Division in England and reported in [1962] 1 All E.R 448 (Moiden v R (1976) 27 FLR 206). There are two limbs to the test under section 210:

[i] Whether there is no evidence to prove an essential element of the charged offence;

[ii] Whether the prosecution evidence has been so discredited or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could convict.

An accused can rely on either limb of the test under section 210 to make an application for no case to answer in the Magistrates' Court."

6. Bearing in mind the above legal principles now I would consider this application. The allegation against accused is that on 20th April 2013 at Lami he drove a motor vehicle registration number FL 195 on Nukuwatu Street in a manner dangerous to the public.
   
7. Therefore the elements of this offence are:
   
   1. The Accused;
   2. Drove a motor vehicle on a public street;
   100. Manner which is dangerous to the public;
   4. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the nature, condition and use of the public street and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be on the public street.
      
8. In Archibold (1996) term dangerous has been described as danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property. Additionally, it states that a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if:-
   

[a] The way or manner he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver,

[b] It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

9. Further in Semisi Lasike v The State [2002} FJHC 159; Madam Shameem said about the Dangerous Driving in the following manner:
   

"Dangerous driving is the causing of a dangerous situation by a manner of driving which falls below the standard expected of a prudent driver".

10. When this court inquired from the Prosecution they submitted that there is evidence to show that the accused was driving in a dangerous manner on that day. But in his testimony the complainant said the vehicle which bumped him was not driving fast. Further there was no evidence tender to show the weather condition, traffic at that time in that place or speed limit of that area. Without evidence regarding these factors this court is not in a position to know whether the driver was driving in a dangerous manner on that time.
    
11. Further when I inquired about the identity of the driver the Prosecution also admitted the complainant did not identify the accused in the court or even previously. In fact the complainant said in the court that he was not aware about the person who drew the vehicle on that day. Even though it seems that the identity would have been reveled from the caution interview and sketch plan the prosecution did not mark these and therefore I would not speculate about them.
    
12. Therefore I find that there is no evidence tender to show an essential element (identity of the driver) of this offence by the prosecution.
    
13. Accordingly I find there is a no case made against the accused and acquit him from this case.
    
14. 28 days to appeal.
    

Shageeth Somaratne
Resident Magistrate