Police v Wakelin [2003] CKHC 10; CR10.2003 (20 June 2003)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE COOK ISLANDS

HELD AT RAROTONGA
(CRIMINAL DIVISION)

CR NO.10/2003,11/2003,
12/2003

POLICE

V

TAMA PAKURA
WAKELIN
Defendant

Mr Titaa for Police
Mr George for Defendant

Date of Hearing: 20 June 2003
Date of Decision: 20 June 2003

DECISION OF SMITH J

This Court is dependent in coming to a conclusion on these charges on the evidence which is placed before it. We have heard that the accused may have been traveling around 50 kilometres per hour. In an admission to the Police he suggested that would have been approximately what he thought he was doing. There is no evidence presented to this Court today as to the speed limit on this particular section of the road, you adverted in your opening submissions that it was 40 kilometres per hour but it was up to the Police to prove that that is the limit in this area.

He mentioned that he came across two different groups of children and he ought to have slowed down. There is no evidence to indicate that there were any

specific signs adverting to the presence of schools or crossings or any other reason which would lead him to believe that there's a likelihood of those children crossing the road or that he ought to have slowed down in anticipation of a group of children appearing from somewhere such as a school or hall or whatever. He's entitled to travel on the road as long as he takes all these reasonable precautions and as Mr George challenged the police officer there is no law that says that you must slow down when you see someone on the side of the road. There was some confusion in the early stages of the evidence as to where the child had come from and obviously he'd come from the accused' right hand side. In other words the child in the evidence which was given earlier on didn't look to that side, didn't see there was anything coming and proceeded to run across the road, he didn't walk, he didn't stroll in the evidence which was given and I accept the evidence from that girl, she was quite genuine, he ran across the road. That road is not a huge road, it's only a distance of 10 metres at the maximum where he would have been standing to where he had crossed the center line and come into line with Mr Wakelin the accused and I believe that this was one of those cases of a sudden emergency where Mr Wakelin was unable to take any evasive action to avoid an inevitable accident caused first of all by the fact that the child did not look to see if there was something coming before he proceeded on the road and secondly that the child in fact ran onto the road in front of the approaching vehicle.

On the charge of careless driving causing death the case is dismissed.

I turn now to the plea of guilty on the charge of failing to report and the circumstances there have been given in evidence that he went to the hospital, was informed by a nurse that the police had been informed of the accident by her. He was told by a doctor to leave because of possible friction with the grandparents of the child or grandfather of the child and then left his name and address at the hospital and that's where the police constable obtained the particulars to enable him to track down the accused. Yes he failed to report as is required in the Act but he took every step to ensure that the police knew who he was, where he was and where he was available. This is not reporting as is required by the Act but I believe that he did so in the mistaken belief that that was adequate, the police knew. He is discharged under S112 of the Criminal Proceedings Act without conviction.

JUDGE

Editorial Note: Derived from the Court’s electronic records and believed to be correct and final.