IN THE FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATES’ COURT
AT LAUTOKA
IN THE WESTERN DIVISION

TRAFFIC CASE NO. 5065 OF 2005

STATE

V

KITIONE ROKOSUKA

For Prosecution: Sgt.S Ali
Accused: In person

Date of Hearing: 14/03/06
Date of Judgment: 24/03/06

JUDGMENT

The accused is charged with the offence of Careless Driving. The accused was served with a TIN on 03/11/05 and charge reads as follows:

Statement of Offence

CARELESS DRIVING
Contrary to Section 99 and 114 of Land Transport Act 1998

Particulars of Offence

KITIONE ROKOSUKA on the 30th day of October 2005 at Lautoka in the Western Division drove a motor vehicle on Drasa Avenue without due care and attention.

The accused was the driver of a fire brigade registration number DE 903 which collided with taxi registration number LT 390. The collision took place on 30/10/05 at 12.15 p.m at the junction of Drasa Avenue and Dravuni Street. PW1 was the driver of the taxi.

PW1 said that the accident took place on Drasa Avenue whilst the accused said that the accident took place at the mouth of the junction of the Drasa Avenue and Dravuni Street (more into Dravuni Street).

The accused was attending a fire call with four other colleagues and after the collision he stopped to see if the occupants of the taxi received injuries and having ascertained that no one was injured he was asked by the officer in charge Isimeli Wekaca (PW2) to proceed on to attend to the fire call. The accused attended the fire call and came back and saw that the taxi was parked more than 100 metres from the junction so he went to the Lautoka Police Station to lodge a report and by then PW1 had already reported the matter to the police.

The accused was caution interviewed by PC Ramaser Prasad (PW3) and he freely participated in the caution interview. The accused explained that as he was entering into Dravuni Street, PW1 did not stop at the junction and continued driving and the taxi bumped the mud flap and the rear right tyre.

PW2 drew a rough sketch plan which is indeed a very rough sketch plan in which he shows the width of the road as 7.2 metres and he shows the point of impact to be 0.9 metres from the centre line and the point of impact is about 1.2 metres from the left hand edge of Dravuni Street. The point of impact is on Drasa Avenue.

The accused said that he had his beacon lights and the head lights on together with the siren. PW1 said that he did not hear the siren nor did he see the lights on the fire brigade. He said that he only heard the siren when he arrived at the junction and he further said that having arrived at the junction he saw the road on his right was clear and he did not look to the left hand side and just turned left and that is when the collision took place. On PW1’s own admission it is clear that he drove his taxi without due care and attention.

The accused was attending a fire call and he had his siren together with the head lights and beacon lights on and this was an emergency situation and it would be reasonable for the accused to have expected that PW1 would give him right of way but unfortunately PW1 did not do so. Fire tenders and police vehicles in an emergency situation have some priority over other road users and the drivers of these vehicles would expect the other road users to give them way to enable them to attend to the emergency situation. PW1 said that he did not hear the siren and perhaps he has some hearing difficulties.

Although the accident took place on his side and PW1 as a reasonable and prudent driver was required to stop at the junction and he was obliged to look at both sides before turning left and not to turn left only by looking on the right hand side.

On the evidence before me I am unable to accept that the accused drove his vehicle without due care and attention and in the circumstances the accused is acquitted of the charge.

[Mohammed Shafiullah Khan]
Resident Magistrate