State v Sologar [2013] FJMC 331; Traffic Case 386.2012 (1 July 2013)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT AT NASINU

Traffic Case No. 386/2012

STATE

-v-

MANJULA DEVI SOLOGAR

PC Joseph Filipe Raymond the Prosecution
Accused appeared in person

Judgment

1] The accused is charged with following traffic offences;

CHARGE:

Statement of Offence [a]

CARELESS DRIVING: Contrary to Section 99 [1] and 114 of the Land Transport [Traffic] Regulation 2000.

Particulars of Offence [b]

MANJULA DEVI SOLOGAR on the 6th day of November 2011 at Nasinu in the Central Division drove a motor vehicle registration number EJ962 along Ratu Dovi Road without due care and attention.

2] The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and case was heard on 12th April 2013 and 13th May 2013. At the trial the prosecution called following witnesses to prove their charges.

3] PW1 is Anjaline Lata: The witness said that she can recall 6th day of November 2011 at about 8.30 pm, she was driving DX297. She was heading to CWM Hospital from Waila Nausori. She said that an accident happened near Vivras Plaza Police Post. She was using back road. She was on right hand side. There was taxi on her left lane a bit ahead from her. She said "Then the taxi made a left turn. And this vehicle EJ. Sir this vehicle EJ was coming out from Ratu Dovi Road and she crossed my vehicle Sir. And to save that from accident Sir I had to turn left. And since I turned left Sir my vehicle went onto the footpath and I had to make a right turn Sir to get back to the road."

4] In cross examination the witness said that the accident did not happen opposite the Police Post. If you pass the Vivras Police Post there is a road going to the left it happened there. She said that she wasn't following the taxi. She was questioned:

"Ms. Lata did you say in your statement at about 8.34 pm at Ratu Dovi Road just pass Vivras Police Post I was following one taxi but I was going at the right side and he was going at the left hand side if you were following the taxi then you definitely cannot be on the right side of the lane, you definitely would be on the left side if you following behind that taxi? Sir I did not say that in my statement"

5] This was a contradiction and witness denied that she told it to the police. Her statement tendered as DEX-1. There were several contradictions were noted in cross examination. The accused crossed the main road and the witness in her statement said that. She was questioned "if you have seen my car you could have easily avoided that accident if you had seen my car". The witness answered "Sir as soon as the taxi driver turned left the vehicle came and cross my lane Sir that's why I was unable to avoid the accident. It came in seconds". The witness admitted that after the car went 110 meters because the left tyre has blasted.

6] PW2- PC 4347 Mikaele: On that day he was traffic stand by at Valelevu police station and at about half past 8 I receive an accident report at Ratu Dovi Road at Laucala Beach. At about 9 o'clock he reached to the scene. He drew the rough sketch of the accident and took all the measurement. He is also an Investigating Officer in this case. Rough Sketch Plan is marked as EX-1.

7] In cross examination the witness said that he recorded both statements. He said "Yes your Worship after the accident I record both the statement I took accused statement at the Post from Laucala Beach as she complain that she want to go home. Then I came to Valelevu and record the complainant statement". But the accused denied this. The accused said one iTaukei Officer at the Laucala Beach Police Post got her statement. The witness said "if the accused didn't cross that road the accident could not happen. If he just stop at the junction of Sekoula Road and wait for the road to be cleared then she cross then the accident won't happen that day. That shows how careless she is. If she take the other way and go from the roundabout and come on the other Ratu Dovi Road and go inside Moli Place the accident won't happen that day".

8] PW3- PC 3721 Ajesh: This witness was the interviewing officer of this case. He can recall 7th day of November 2011, he was serving in the Traffic Section. at Valelevu Police Station. He interviewed the accused Manjula Devi on that day in English. It was hand written by him. The accused's statement was tendered as Exhibit 2.

9] In Cross-Examination the accused suggested when she came to collect her vehicle and then she was told by Shiraz who was Acting as an Officer-in-Charge that her vehicle is yet to be examined by the Vehicle Inspection Officer, and but then he said he has decided himself to conduct a personal interview with her and then he had called this witness in and had asked him to take an interview with the accused. The witness said "our Senior Officer, Traffic Officer who is giving out instructions to us Sir. I was instructed to interview you, so I interviewed you".

10] PW4-Dilesh Chand: This witness was the vehicle examiner of LTA. He said that he examined accident vehicle that was parked at Valelevu Police Station. The vehicle was done on 8th November 2011 at Valelevu Police Station. The number of the vehicle registration that inspected is EJ962. The examiner noted "the rear right quarter panel was damaged rear lights and rear bumper. The brakes and other mechanical parts it was ok.there was simply no defects in the vehicle." This report was marked as Exhibit 3.

11] Under cross examination the witness admitted that he has not provided the vehicle inspection report in respect of the vehicle DX297 Because Police never requested for the other vehicle to be inspected. The witness admitted that he cannot give any opinion regarding speed of a other vehicle but it is not a touch.

12] Thereafter, the prosecution called the case. Since there is case to answer right to call defence is explained. The accused opted to give sworn evidence.

13] The Accused: Manjula Sologar: The accused adduced evidence as follows;

" Your Lordship on the night the accident happened that was 6th November 2011 with my vehicle EJ962 which was hit on the rear side by the driver of the vehicle DX297 Mrs. Anjila Prasad. It happened on 6th November approximately at about 8.30. On that night I dropped off Mrs. Daya Ram at her residence in Sekoula Road. And I attended a Lord Krishna Tulsi Ma ceremony at Laxmi Narayan temple in Ono Street. And on my way back I took the road through Holland Street into Amy Street and Waimanu Road into Borron Road through Gaji into Jerusalem Road then into Nokonoko into Sekoula Road to drop off Mrs. Daya Ram. And after dropping her I came to the junction of the Sekoula Road passing Dovi Road to go towards my home at 10 Moli Place. And I stopped the vehicle. I had totally stopped the vehicle because I have been using that road and I know it's a requirement for all drivers to stop at the junction. I stopped. I looked and I saw the vehicle on the right on my right side that was coming towards Dovi Road and that vehicle which I had seen was only one vehicle that was on the left lane close to the footpath the taxi that has been referred to. And that vehicle was quite far. That vehicle was far and I crossed. Then only I crossed. I crossed I came into no men zone and as I was about to go into my street and I felt a hit on my vehicle at the back. And my vehicle had a swing. It took with the impact that had hit my vehicle my vehicle swing and faced towards the Vivras Plaza. And there was a taxi that came out from Moli Place. The taxi stopped and I told him I said I just don't know who has hit my vehicle because I looked around I couldn't see any vehicle at that particular scene where the accident happened. There was no vehicle. And then the taxi driver told me I am not at fault you the vehicle stopped there and then he said put on the hazard and call the Police. And then I asked him please you can stay also here but he refused to and then he reiterated that I was not at fault. So I stopped and then I called Mrs. Daya Ram to say that the accident happened. And there was a gentleman which he has given here statement and they willing to come and give a to be the witness if they are called because he had seen that accident from his home. He has seen the accident. And I stopped and I called the Police. And then there was a lady Policewoman she came at the scene. And she said that the reason why my vehicle was hit the vehicle that was coming from Dovi Road DX297 she was speeding and that's how she has hit at the back of my vehicle. And Sir your Honor I wish to say and emphasize that I had passed the vehicle I had passed and the other thing is her vehicle went quite far. Because if I was hit from the front in front of her my vehicle could have hit in the middle on my right side of the door and she would have pushed me backwards. My vehicle would not have swing to face across towards Vivras Plaza. She would have moved me back and my vehicle would have been you know closer to her vehicle. To her vehicle but that did not happen. In fact the distance is quite far from where I was hit and where she was parked. And secondly she has stated that she was following the taxi. If she was following the taxi then she was on the left lane which is close to the footpath. If she that indicates that she must have been very close to the taxi. She must have been following very close to the taxi and then she must have realized that the taxi is going towards Sekoula Road and if she was so close if she applied the brake might hit on the taxi then she decided to come into the other lane. And that's where she must have mischarge because I feel in my mind that she was driving with carelessly. I wasn't driving carelessly and then that's how my vehicle was hit with an impact and the tyre has busted. And secondly why the statement of the other vehicle which was also involved in an accident has not been examined by the Vehicle Examiner? And given the fact that her vehicle tyre have exploded and burst and she has said that also. And on that night after the both cars were towed and the incident that had taken place we were told to go to the Laucala Beach Police Post to take give the statement. I had given my statement and she was waiting to be for her to give the statement. And I was I had never said that I will not go to the Valelevu Police Station because that question was not asked. That question was not asked whether I want to go to the Valelevu Police Station to give.I wasn't in a hurry at all. I wasn't. That night I said I was sitting there for that long and I was following the processes and procedures that is place by the Authority. And I was abiding by that and the tenant my tenant one of the family member he came and he was there with me also. He was there with me to wait with me so that everything is completed the statement has been completed then he would take me home. And there was no such thing as the statement will be given at the Valelevu Police Station. That question was not asked at all. And if Anjline Lata was sitting there then she gave the statement I don't really see the need for the statement to be taken again at Valelevu Police Station. And like I said in my defence statement that day on 7th of November I called in the morning and. Yes I wish to tender my defence statement. [Defence Exhibit 3]. Because in that it unfolds how this personal interview took place. The personal interview if I had not gone to collect my vehicle that personal interview would not have conducted. Because when I called the Acting Officer-in-Charge to ask if I can come and collect my vehicle he informed me that I can come later in the afternoon because he has to make an arrangement with the Vehicle Examiner. And when I arrived there like I said in my defence statement he had asked to conduct a personal interview. Why the need for personal interview for me only when I had already given the statement and if there was a need for me to conduct the personal interview then I should have called in the proper manner not when I went there to pick my vehicle. Why was it taken there and then? Why was I asked to give a personal interview? And like I said as law abiding citizen I thought that was a normal procedure so I accepted conduct for Ajesh to conduct the interview. But on that night of the accident when I went home after 11 after giving my statement at Laucala Beach Police Post I received a call from Valelevu Police Station to say they were accusing me. How can they accuse me that I was at fault, because the accident on that night, the measurement was taken and accident report was not prepared at all. Accident report was not prepared at all. Then how can they say that I was at fault on that particular day on that particular night and even the following day when I went to do my personal interview. When I was alleged for careless driving. Why was I alleged for careless driving when the record was not on the table that soon. It happened on the night of 7th I went for my personal interview when I went to collect my vehicle I was asked for the personal interview. That should not have happened? Because if that was the case then why on the following because on that particular day after the interview was conducted then she asked on me that my examiner will come on 8th and for me to collect my vehicle on 8th. So when I went to collect my car key I was told by Shiraz if I have the contact of the driver of the vehicle DX297 and I didn't say why is he asking me her contact because only time I saw her like she said when we were seated at the Laucala Beach Police Post, we had met each other. And why then she ask me for her phone number? And then I said if she has given her statement at Laucala which Police Post and if you are you know collating with the Police Post knowing that the accident happened at Laucala Beach then definitely Laucala Beach Police Officers will also be involved on the scene. And they were involved because the interviews were conducted there. The interviews were conducted there. And then when I went and then when he ask me I said sorry I don't have I don't have any contact of her and then I asked him why are you asking me? He said he wants to conduct a personal interview with her also. If that was the case Sir then why because Mika had already taken her interview according to this according to his statement on 6th, on 6th and on 8th why did Shiraz ask me that he wanted to conduct an interview with her? So that is why you know I felt that I need to go to a higher Authority knowing the way things were happening you know and being called at night. So I called, I called Mr. Ram Chetty and he was that point in time he was Director Corporate Services. And he gave me the number of Mr. Paniappa Goundar and he's the Police Commander Southern. I spoke to him which I have stated here also and he said that I shouldn't have been they should not have conducted the personal interview with force. It should have been her. And also as I have said your Honor that accident report was by then not prepared. And then I was alleged to say that I am driving carelessly. And then Ajesh also told me and I kept saying no I wasn't driving carelessly I had stopped, I had seen and I had crossed. And then he said that he will do the same for her. He will do same for her, but that did not happen at all. Because if you see the statement that Ms. Anjline Prasad has given it seems the investigation conducted on her is very limited compared to mine which is so lengthy in terms of the personal record interview that was taken place and on the other hand I was told that she will be asked to do a personal interview also and Ajesh said that he will be doing the same for her. And that is why the word yes is there. And then he also emphasize in the end when I'll ask you the question you are guilty or not guilty then you can say you are not guilty. Then you can state whether you are guilty or not guilty. So when I was emphasizing on then why he wasn't he should have pushed that and he shouldn't have even posed that statement to me that he will be doing the same for Anjline Lata. Why did you pose that question to me also, he shouldn't have done that either. And then I proceeded and then Paniappa Goundar told me because in at that point in time he was on leave then he said he's going to go back to work and then he said he called a meeting, he called a meeting and he reprimanded the Officer regarding the statement that is here. And then he decided.

[Is this the oral complaint against the Police]? Yes. It was just verbal on the phone on his mobile. And then he said that he is now going to give to take the case from Shiraz and will give it to Mika to handle the case to the Traffic Section to Mika. And then from there Mikaele handled. And the other thing Sir you could see know the way things happened against me in terms of the responsibility that is placed on the Police Authority. The summon when I was summoned I was called on the night you can record I have given the date here. On the night by Mr. Iosefo if I can come and collect the summon from the Police Station. I mean like I have said this has never happened to me this is the first time that kind of accident happened and I have been driving for the last 38 years. And I have been residing at Laucala Beach for a number of years and I constantly use those roads. I was with the Public Service Commission and I retired from there and then I worked as a Human Resource Manager at Kasabias for 2 years and then retired. [Anything you missed out to say]? Yes. I was giving my statement in regards to the unfolding of that and then he told me that he has given it to Mika. And then Iosefo called me and then like I said I was never involved in such kind of and this is my first exposure. And it's a lesson learnt also. And then what I had and I told my friend I said you know I have been asked to go and pick the summon and I thought that was the procedure we have to go and pick the summon. Then I was told no that is not the case. That is not the case the Police Officers should deliver the statement at my place. Then I called and I informed I wanted to speak to Mika no to Iosefo I wanted to speak to Iosefo and he was not on duty. So I left a message that I will not be able to come and summon should be delivered. And the summon was delivered to me last year just before the Easter Weekend. Because I was called here on 10th of April. And it was delivered on 5th that was Thursday prior to the Easter Weekend. And I was surprised you know I was shocked as to why I have received that and then when I read that then I realized that I was charged for careless driving. And like I said I wasn't driving carelessly. And I was charged for that since that statement that Ajesh has taken alleging me that you know I was driving carelessly. And then Mika delivered the statements early in the morning before I was getting ready to go work. He delivered the statement. And then in the statement that was also incomplete. And like the gentleman has said that you know we are suppose to provide all detailed submissions and I was not even given my statement that I have given at the Laucala Beach Police Post which to me I feel is also important. [Everything in writing]? Yes statement was in writing. At Laucala Beach everything was in writing. And the other thing is the fact is the person who took the statement after he had written the statement he ask me to sign. He didn't even ask he didn't even read through or ask me to go through my statement, no that I am not sure of whether we should be given. In my view I mean what has happened now I could clearly see that it is important for us to personally read ourself because when we read the statement ourself then we can see because the Police Officers you know how they think the way they write you know it can be confusing at times. And you know and I wasn't even given that opportunity to read the statement or even him to read the statement. He asked me to blindly sign the statement and the other fact is that statement is not provided.

To me if you talk about accountability, transparency, responsibility of employee the role that we have to play as an individual in a workplace it is also very important for us to have the submission. It's very important. It's not a question that you know if the statement is taken at Valelevu Police Station there's no need for us to provide the statement that was given at other Police Post. Then why the purpose of having those Police Posts. That is why they are there and we are residing in that area. We are residing in that area so that also should be provided for. You cannot say that you know it's not a requirement. [So you say you didn't have a fair trial of hearing, Police Station or Court]? Pardon. You said you didn't have fair. No, it wasn't and I say the way the personal interview was conducted. It was conducted on the verge of that moment when I went to collect my vehicle. I wasn't told in advance that we wish to conduct a personal interview. And I said you know I was told about that they want to then I would have done a research also to find out as to why the reason to conduct a personal interview you know my role in that. That was not done. You know like I said the awareness is also important for the Authority to give to us. Respecting whether we are at fault or not. Those documents are important documents. And that awareness also. Their role is to inform us. When we are not aware of such procedures, processes that are in place. And there was no your Honor it wasn't transparent it wasn't fair the way my case was handled. It wasn't. And that's why your Honor I had to take the matter to the upper Authority because I knew there was you know when I was abused of being careless driving. You know like I said initially I wasn't even aware that I was abused. When all these incidents that started taking place when the summon came to me then only I knew that they charged me for careless driving. But while these processes was taking prior to the written statement coming to me you know I wasn't aware of that you know this could be the outcome of it. I wasn't aware. And if Ajesh said he is going to do the same to Ms. Lata then he should have done that also. Should have done that and I was also told by the Director of Traffic that you know this was.[Do you mean that she was contributory negligence]? Yes she did. Yes she did. Because due to that negligence that's why the accident happened and the Policewoman that came to the Post and she herself has confirmed that there was a Police lady. She was a first one who came. And she said that vehicle was speeding and that's why she hit me at the back. And if like I said I am emphasizing if I had crossed in front of her it would not have hit at the back. It would be somewhere in the middle and you know somewhere towards the part in front and middle. And that impact the way you could see that extensive damage that was done on the vehicle that impact would have pushed the vehicle. It would not have swapped in the middle if it was hit in the middle. If I was coming straight of the vehicle. I had not crossed in front of the vehicle. Her vehicle was not there when I crossed. The only vehicle that was there was the taxi went into the Sekoula Road. [So that's all]? Yes. And also your Honor it is important to know, you know if I can give the statement at Laucala Beach Police Post and we both were seated that's the purpose of having community post. And then why was she again on that same night why did she give her statement again at Valelevu Police Station. And that coincides with that call that was given to me in the night from the Valelevu Police Station, accusing me. When the person who called was not even there at the scene and there was record also to indicate who is at fault. And Mika had not interviewed me at all. Mika had not interviewed me at all. The only 2 Policemen that had me was one at Laucala Beach and the one at by Ajesh. And it's also important also to know your Honor that why the Police Authority you know so much of emphasis by the LTA on this thing. Yes and the accident that happened like I said Sir that I had stopped I had crossed the road. I had crossed the road and it was hit from the back and she has stated that she has hit from the back. And she has also stated that she touched, she touched because if that was the case and then she was following the taxi. She was following the taxi and then how come suddenly she came into the other lane if she was following the taxi. She came to the other lane and she bumped me from the behind. I had not caused that accident, definitely had not caused that accident."

14] In the cross examination the accused said that before the accident occurred that she knew that she will be able to cross the road. The taxi you saw approaching from Ratu Dovi Road where Laucala Beach heading towards Suva was a bit far. She admitted that she only saw the taxi coming and she had crossed because she had not seen the PW1's vehicle because I had already crossed and reached the no men zone. The accused was cross examined at length.

15] With the permission of court the accused was called again for cross examination. In that the accused produced sketch plan as DEX-4.

16] The accused called DW2- Sarwan Kumar Shorty: This is the husband of PW1. The accused suggested "Mr. Kumar can you recall that the night of the accident on 6/11/2011 and at the scene of the accident you have suggested to me that we should not involve the Police, could you explain why you had made the suggestion to me and what was my response?" The witness replied "I suggested that we had after the accident because I was not there my wife was involved in the accident. So when I came in and Ms. Devi she said that she was suppose to go overseas for one function or graduation. So she did not want to get into this Court stuff. So it will drag her in her not letting her to arrive in New Zealand or one of the overseas countries on time. So I suggested that we can settle this thing outside Court. That means the Police is not involved. The damages which have taken place we repair ours and then we don't end up in Court. That's what I have suggested Sir".

17] DW3: Daya Ram: He said that after the incident he came to the accident place. When he came the other car's tyre DX297 had exploded or burst and it was parked 15 – 20 meters away on the road side. The accused's car was on the center of the road but it was pointing about 90° away from the direction to travel which means if it was suppose to go that way then it was standing like that. He heard the conversation but he did not remember exact wording but he thought the conversation was something like that it should be settle in without going to Police. He also insisted, but the accused said you will challenge.

18] In the cross examination is also the witness confirmed this.

19] DW4: Gyanendra Singh: The witness said that his house is located at the junction of the Ratu Dovi and Sekoula Road and he has a very clear sight of the road and from his balcony. He saw the accident. The accused stopped the car before proceeded to the main road. He explained how the Accident occurred "There was a vehicle I am not too sure what was it. It was a car I know that was turning into Sekoula Road from Vivrass Police side and another vehicle was following behind the vehicle that was turning into Sekoula Road. so what happened the second vehicle that was following your Honor it overtook the vehicle turning into the Sekoula Road and it was in my opinion it was speeding. Then after that I just saw that accident happening which means. She has already she had stopped and passed the double line. The two lanes that was from Nausori side. Going to. So that's no men zone area. Yea you were on the no men zone area...So the 2 vehicles were 1 was behind another vehicle and the 1st vehicle was turning into the Sekoula Road and the 2nd vehicle overtook the turning vehicle into the middle lane and that's when the accident happen".

20] In cross examination the witness said though it was 8-8.30pm, it was visible. The accused overtook the taxi slightly more 60, 70 meters.

21] Thereafter defence closed the case. I have carefully considered evidence, defence submissions and Exhibits by both parties.

22] Careless Dri#160;is defs defined by s 99 (1) of the Land Transport Act as driving "on a public street without due care and attention".

23]The test for cas driving ised ised in the of Khau>Khan v State, High Court of Fiji Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1994 (21 October, 1994) as follows:

n order to determine whether the offence of #160;careless drivin0;is cois committed, ted, the test, as LORD GODDARD C.J. said in SIMPSON v PEAT (1952 1 AER 447 at p.449) is: "was D exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and pt driver would exercise in e in the circumstances?"

The standard of proof is an objective one . . ." (As cited in State v Lovo [2009] FJMC 7; Traffic Case 31.2009 (24 September 2009)

24] The burden of proof is vested on the state in this matter and they should prove this charge beyond reasonable doubt. What is proof of beyond reasonable doubt is described in several cases.
25] 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 doub. This meansmeans that you must be satisfied so that you feel sure of the guilt of the accused persons before you expresspinion that they are guilty. If you have any reasonable doubt as to whether the accused perd 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 reasondoubt about the the guilt of thu accused."

26] In State v Tuiloa [2008] FJHC 251; HAC003.2007 (24 June 2008) Justice Jocelynne A. Scutt in Her Ladyship's summing up said;

"The qon then is what the standarandard 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 doubt. must be satisfied of guilt, before you can express an opinion about it. Only if you are sure, if you are satisfied beyond reasonable douof guilt, then it is yois your duty to say so. If you are not sure, not satisfied beyond a rable doubt, then you must 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)

27] In this case both drivers are ladies. The trial was hard fought prestige battle. However, the accused has no burden to prove her innocence. It transpired the PW1 was not charged for careless driving but only the accused charge for careless driving. It seen that PW1 and the accused although participated in the action, the real eye witness is Mr. Gyanendra Singh. He opined the PW1 drove the care in excessive speed. This witness is a experienced driver and he has no interest over this case. He did not have reason to lie to the court. He said that the accused came and stopped the vehicle before entering the main road. The accused was careful. The PW1's vehicle was at the back following the taxi and the accused did not see that. It was in the night and the observation of the accused may be poor but observation is unique person to person, cannot be blamed. When the accused came to no man zone the PW1 bumped her at the back. The damage was done thereby and the PW1 stopped her vehicle after 110 metres. It is seen that PW1 came excessive speed and she had no control over the accident. After hitting, PW1 went 110 metres ahead and the car tyre exploded. The accused in her evidence said "Yes and the accident that happened like I said Sir that I had stopped I had crossed the road. I had crossed the road and it was hit from the back and she has stated that she has hit from the back. And she has also stated that she touched, she touched because if that was the case and then she was following the taxi. She was following the taxi and then how come suddenly she came into the other lane if she was following the taxi. She came to the other lane and she bumped me from the behind. I had not caused that accident, definitely had not caused that accident. The LTA examiner confirmed the accused's vehicle got damaged and it was not a touch. The defence witness Mr. Gyanendra Singh confirmed the accused evidence and I hold, at that moment, the accused was exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent driver would exercise in the circumstances. The prosecution failed to prove its charges beyond reasonable doubt.

28] The accused is acquitted and discharged.

29] 28 days to appeal.

On 01st July 2013, at Nasinu, Fiji Islands

Sumudu Premachandra
Resident Magistrate-Nasinu