State v Chand [2010] FJMC 103; Traffic Case 1869 of 2009 (28 January 2010)

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

TRAFFIC CASE NO.: 1869 OF 2009

STATE

V

SUBHASH CHAND

JUDGMENT

1] The charge in this case Stopping Abreast Contrary to Regulation No. 18 read with No. 87 of the Land Transport [Traffic] Regulations 2000.

2] The particulars of offence reads as follows:

Subhash Chand on the 8th day of August 2009 at Lautoka in the Western Division being the driver of vehicle registration number 980 on Yasawa Street brought the vehicle to stand still abreast of other vehicle and caused obstruction to other road users.

BACKGROUND

3] The accused, Subhash Chand had been booked on 08/08/09 for stopping abreast on Yasawa Street. The accused appeared in Court on 06/10/09 and pleaded not guilty to the charge. The case was taken up for hearing on 11/01//10. Accused was unrepresented and the prosecution was led by a Corporal of Lautoka Police. The prosecution called two witnesses who did the booking. After closing the prosecution case, the Court decided that the prosecution has made out a case sufficient to require the accused to call evidence and the accused gave evidence from the witness box. As the accused did not call any other witnesses the case was fixed for Judgment.

4] Basically the prosecution case was that the accused stopped the vehicle abreast of another vehicle on the street causing obstruction to the other road users.

5] Accused's position was that he stopped the vehicle to enable a friend of him to get in to his vehicle. And he said that he put the hazard lights on and gave hand signals to show that he is stopping.

THE LAW

The regulation 19 of the Land Transport [Traffic] Regulations 2000 reads as follows:

"19 No driver must brought a vehicle to a stand still abreast of any other vehicle except:

a] when the person does so by reason of a stoppage in the traffic and proceeds as soon as circumstances permit.

b] at an intersection or a junction or a pedestrian crossing school or railway level crossing at which two or more lanes are marked for traffic traveling in the same direction or,

c] when in the process of entering a vacant parking space.

6] Thus it is clear that the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has stopped the vehicle abreast of other vehicle and it does not fall within the three exceptional circumstances.

ANALYSIS

1] In this case the prosecution called the police officers who did the booking and led evidence to show that the accused stopped his vehicle abreast of other vehicle. The first witness P.C Vesi of Lautoka Police said while giving evidence that on 08/08/09 around 4.30p.m while he was on highway patrol with P.C Ajay the vehicle No. 980 was parked abreast on the main road on Yasawa Street. He said that the accused had thus obstructed the traffic flow.

2] 2nd witness of the prosecution PC 881 Ajay Kumar said in his evidence that on 08/08/09 at about 4.30p.m, when he was on duty with P.C Vesi, they have booked a driver for stopping a vehicle beside another parked vehicle causing obstruction to other traffic. This witness identified the accused as the person who was booked.

3] The accused was explained his rights to cross examine the witnesses and he suggested to the prosecution witness1 that he had parked the vehicle after putting hand signal and hazard lights. When the accused was cross examined by the prosecution following evidence was recorded by the Court.

17. You stopped your vehicle beside a parked vehicle?

A. Yes.

4] Thus it is clear that the accused does not dispute the fact that he stopped the vehicle abreast on that particular street. His contention was that when he stopped there was another vehicle in front his vehicle and that he put hand signals and hazard lights to show that he is stopping.

5] When accused was giving evidence he was cross examined by the prosecution and once he was asked, "Do you know the purpose of hazard lights?" Then the accused answered "emergency or breakdown". Later the accused admitted that there was no emergency or breakdown.

6] Although the accused said that he used hand signals no prosecution witnesses has admitted that he used hand signals. Subsequently the accused said when he was cross examined by the prosecution that he put hand signals but the officer may not have observed.

7] Be that as it may, as far as the regulation 19 is concerned that even a person puts a hazard lights and signals with his hand, the law does not permit a driver to stop abreast of another vehicle. It was clear from the evidence of the accused itself that there had not been an emergency or a breakdown. The accused had clearly admitted that he stopped the vehicle for a friend of him to get in to his vehicle.

8] The other contention that the accused put forward was that another vehicle was stopped in front of his vehicle.

9] According to regulation 19 (a), it is one of the exceptions that a driver may stop abreast when the person does so by reason of a stoppage in the traffic and proceeds as soon as circumstances permits.

10] It appears that once the prosecution places evidence before the Court to prove that the accused stopped abreast of a vehicle, the burden of proof shifts on to the accused to prove that the circumstances that compelled him to stop abreast falls on any one or more of the exceptions set out in the regulation 19 of the Land Transport [Traffic] regulation.

11] The accused has suggested to prosecution witness-1 during cross examination that there was another vehicle in front of his vehicle. However the prosecution witness 1 said that "when he approached, the vehicle in front moved". The accused has suggested the same question to the prosecution witness 2. However the prosecution witness 2 said that "There was no vehicle in front of his vehicle when we went there". When the accused gave evidence he said that he stopped his vehicle for a friend to get in and there was a van in front of him. However in anywhere he did not say that he had stopped his vehicle merely because the vehicle in front was stopped. When the evidence of the accused and the questions put by him to the prosecution witnesses are carefully analyzed, it appears that the accused had not in any instance said that he was compelled to stop the vehicle abreast of other vehicle because of the vehicle in front stopped. Even if the Court believes, in fact there was a vehicle in front of the accused's vehicle, nothing suggests that he stopped his vehicle by reason of a stoppage of the traffic and he proceeded as soon as circumstances permitted.

12] The evidence led by the prosecution was corroborated by each witness and there was no contradictions seen in the prosecution evidence.

13] The prosecution has led evidence to show that the accused on 08/08/09 on Yasawa Street stopped his vehicle abreast of another vehicle beyond reasonable doubt. No evidence was led in this case to assume that the accused has so stopped due to any of the three exceptions set out in regulation 19.

14] Thus I decide that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

15] Accordingly I convict the accused for the charge of Stopping Abreast Contrary to Regulation 19 read with Regulation 87 of the Land Transport [Traffic] Regulation 2000.

Rangajeeva Wimalasena
Resident Magistrate

AT LAUTOKA
28th January 2010