State v Saheed [2013] FJMC 196; Traffic Case 9864.2012 (20 May 2013)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT AT NASINU

Traffic Case No. 9864/2012

STATE

-v-

ABDUL SAHEED

PC J.F. Raymond for the prosecution
Accused appeared in person

Judgment

1] the accused is charged with following count;

CHARGE:

Statement of Offence [a]

INCONSIDERATE DRIVING: Contrary to Section 99 (1) and 114 of Land Transport Act 35 of 1998.

Particulars of Offence [b]

ABDUL SAHEED, on 18.4.12 at Suva in the Central Division drove a taxi on Fletcher Road, Sun court without due consideration to other road users.

2] The accused pleaded not guilty and hearing was done on 27th February 2013. To prove the charges the prosecution called one witness. He is PW1, Police Constable No. 2594 Joseva Rakaseta. He said on 18th the day of April 2012he was on duty on Kings Road and to look into the busy traffic hours of that morning and at about 0800 hours That is the very busiest moment of the traffic and as it all comes up to Nabua bypass and it queues up every morning. On that day at about 0810 hours in the morning, he was at the Nabua bus stop on this Fletcher Road ends. he noticed that the traffic man that is controlling the light on the junction of Nabua bypass and Fletcher Road has stopped the vehicle that are heading towards Suva to allow the vehicle coming from Fletcher Road to proceed on some goes to Suva and those who go straight to Nabua. And whilst this vehicles were proceeding normally a taxi registration no. LT 5437 came and stop right to the junction that people turning into Suva. So PW1 waved to the driver to move on and the driver is signaling to him that he is waiting for the passenger who was coming running at the Sun court car park, so he waved at him to move on because people behind him are tooting their horns. And he failed to do that. He just waited for the passenger to come and get in and PW1 pull him over to the right hand side of the road whereby he questioned the accused and he booked him for inconsiderate driving. He served him a copy of a Traffic Infringement Notice and he also warned him for Prosecution. The witness identified the accused.

3] There was no cross examination by the accused.

4] Since there is a case to answer right to call defence is explained. The accused opted to give sworn evidence.

5] The Accused Abdul Shahid gave evidence. He said "I was going towards Suva from Fletcher Road. And I was suppose to stop at a junction. And the booking officer was standing at the bus stop. I stopped at the junction and I wanted to sew whether the left side was clear. The Fijian lady was also standing there. She opened the door of my taxi and she sat inside. It was drizzling. She sat inside my taxi and she asked me to go towards Grantham Road. The booking officer was standing there and he booked me. After she sat inside my taxi the booking officer booked me"

6] In the cross examination the accused said there was no police officer was patrolling in the middle of the road. He further admitted when his passenger, she opened the door to sit inside the taxi then the Bokking Officer asked him to leave. He also admitted this question

"Q:I put it to you that you are lying, there was a Police Officer conducting duty that day, he stopped the traffic ongoing to Suva, the booking officer called you to proceed as it was clear but you still waited for your passenger to get in your taxi, causing other vehicles there to toot the horn.

A: Yes Sir"

7] Thereafter defence closed the case. I now consider law and facts.

8] Burden of proof goes to the prosecution. In State v Seniloli [2004] FJHC 48; HAC0028.2003S (5 August 2004) Her Ladyship Justice Nazhat Shameem told to assessors (summing up);

"The standard of proof in a criminal case is one of proof beyond reasonable doubt This mhis means that you must be satisfied so that you feel sure of the guilt of the accused persons before you express an opinion that they are guilty. If you have any reasonable doubt as to whether the accused persons committed the offence charged against each of them on the Information, then it is your duty to express an opinion that the accused are not guilty. It is only if you are satisfied so that you feel sure of their guilt that you must express an opinion that they are guilty. One of the defence counsel asked you if you had the slightest doubt about the accused's guilt. That is not the correct test. The correct test is whether you have any reasonable doubt about the guf the accused."

9] In State v Tuiloa [2008] FJHC 251; HAC003.2007 (24 June 2008) Justice Jocelynne A. Scutt in Her Ladys summp said;

"The question then is what that the sthe standard of proof is. That is, when the onus rests on the State as it does here and generally in criminal trials, what is the standard the State must meet? The State must prove all the necessary ingredients of the charge.... beyond reasonable doProof roof beyond reale doubt means eans what it You. You must be sure; you must be satisfied of guilt, before you can express an opinion about it. Onlyou are, , then it is your duty to y to say so. If you are not sure, not satisfied beyond a reasonablbt, then you myou must give your opinion that the accused is not guilty. This assessment, this determination, rests with you – with each of you – upon your individual assessment of the evidence." (Emphasis is mine)

10] The Land Transport act describes the offence. Section 99 says;
"99. - (1) A person who drives a motor vehicle on a public street without due care and attention commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the prescribed penalty. (This is offence of Careless Driving)
(2) A person who drives a motor vehicle on a public street without due consideration for other persons using the public street (including but not limited to, driving at an unreasonably slow speed) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the prescribed penalty."(This is offence of Inconsiderate Driving)
11] The Penalty is mentioned in section 114 of the LTA are as follows;

"99(2)

Inconsiderate driving

$500/3 months, and 3 demerit points."

12] The accused is charge with second limb of section 99 of LTA. The ingredients and the facts of the charge are as follows;
a) a person( the accused)
b) drives a motor vehicle on a public street( drove a taxi on Fletcher Road)
c) without due consideration for other persons using the public street ( The accused stopped the taxi and took the passenger in the middle of road which is not a taxi stand)
13] The booking officer said the other vehicles were blocked and they tooted horn. The accused admits that he stopped the taxi at the middle of the road and lady passenger sat inside his vehicle. The accused stopped the taxi and took the passenger in the middle of road which is not the taxi stand. Thereby he committed inconsiderate driving. The booking officer has no reason to tell lies to this court. This is not an excuse to stop the taxi at passengers' choices. I therefore hold the prosecution has proved its charges beyond reasonable doubt.
14] The accused is convicted as charged.
15] 28 days to appeal
On 20th May 2013, at Nasinu, Fiji Islands
Sumudu Premachandra [Mr.]
Resident Magistrate-Nasinu