Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Papua New Guinea District Court

Giran v Boin [2007] PGDC 170; DC758 (23 November 2007)

DC758

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

CR 62 of 2007

BETWEEN

FRANCIS GIRAN
Informant

AND

BOAS BOIN
Defendant

Buka: B Tasikul, SM

2007: November 23

Cases Cited

Nil

References

Nil

Counsel

For the Prosecution - Senior Constable Thomas Ratavi
For the Defendant - In Person

23 November 2007

REASON FOR DECISION

B Tasikul, SM : The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge of driving a motor vehicle - Toyota Land cruiser 10seater - registration no. ZGA 127 upon public street, Buka - Kessa highway without due care and attention.

2. The evidence adduced by the prosecution was all circumstantial as there were no witnesses available at the time of the accident. The defendant was the only one whom driven the vehicle at that time. The only prosecution witness Mr. Randall Pongat testified that they were having a few drinks at Pemana with the defendant. They decided to break up so the defendant went with a Bonny to pick up the vehicle and come back pick Randall.

3. He waited but the defendant never returned. A James decided to drop Randall home. While on the way they saw a police vehicle sitting on the road side with the lights still on. He checked the vehicle but there was nobody there. The vehicle had damages on it so it appeared that it was involved in an accident.

4. They turned back towards Malasang No. 2 village and saw the defendant on the road. They picked him and drove to the hospital for the defendant to get medical treatment as he sustained injuries.

5. The defendant did not dispute the fact that he was the driver of the vehicle. He contented, the reason he ran off the road was because he felt sleepy and tired after attending activities at Haku during the weekends. He has been driving up and down from Haku since Friday and until on Monday September 17 2007 when got involved in the accident.

6. The defendant contented that he was very tired while driving home. While on several occasions he felt asleep but managed to be awaken at times, however, when he reached Malasang he dosed off which resulted running off the road whereby caused this accident.

7. As I have mentioned, tiredness is not a defence in law. There is nothing under the Criminal Code Act or Motor Traffic Act. The defendant knew that he was so tired to drive. He promised to return to Randall and others after picking up the vehicle. Should he have returned to Randall and others, he could have allowed Randall to drive. He further contended that the vehicle was not roadworthy. There were some mechanical faults which caused the accident. There was no evidence to prove that issue.

8. The defendant should have used his common sense, as an officer in charge of Traffic Office he knew very well that he was not in the position to drive. What he should have done was to get someone else to drive him home. This is an unreasonable excuse.

9. I therefore find the defendant guilty as charged.

For the Prosecution - Senior Constable Thomas Ratavi
For the Defendant - In Person