State v Maharaj [2016] FJMC 106; Traffic Case 82.2015 (1 August 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

Traffic Case : - 82/2015

STATE
V
PRAVEEN PRANIL MAHARAJ

For the Prosecution : Cpl Shaw
For the Accused : Mr.K.Prasad (LAC)
Date of Ruling : 01^st of August 2016

RULING ON NO CASE TO ANSWER

1. The accused was charged with one count of Careless Driving contrary sections 99(1) and 114 of the Land Transport Act (“Act”) No 35 of 1998.
2. Section 99(1) of the Act reads :

“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.”

3. Therefore the elements of the offence are :
   1. The accused;
   2. Drives a motor vehicle ;
   100. On a public road ;
   4. Without due care and attention.
4. The accused pleaded not guilty for this charge wherefore this proceeded for hearing. The prosecution called only 2 witnesses and marked the vehicle examiner report as exhibit.
5. The defence made a ‘no case submission’ after the prosecution closes the case and submitted that the prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the offence through the evidence. This application was made pursuant to section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Decree.
6. Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Decree reads :

“if at the close of the evidence in support of the charge it appears to the court that a case is not made out against the accused person sufficiently to require him or her to make a defence, the court shall dismiss the case and shall acquit the accused”.

7. In State V Aiyaz [2009] FJHC 186 his Lordship Justice Goundar held that :

“ The test for no case to answer in the Magistrates’ Court under section 210 is adopted from the Practice Direction, issued by the Queen’s Bench Division in England and reported in [1962] 1 All E.R 448 (Moiden v R (1976) 27 FLR 206). There are two limbs to the test under section 210 :

[i] Whether there is no evidence to prove an essential element of the charged offence;

[ii] Whether the prosecution evidence has been so discredited or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could convict.

An accused can rely on either limb of the test under section 210 to make an application for no case to answer in the Magistrates’ Court.”

8. In this case PW1 said there were 2 vehicles involved in the accident and the driver of the rental car (the accused) was not in fault. He also did not see how the accident happened. PW2, the vehicle examiner from LTA said the vehicle was damaged due to the accident and marked the report of the other vehicle that was involved in this accident.
9. Therefore from the available evidence, I find there is no evidence to show the accused was driving without due care and attention at this stage and acquit him from this charge.
10. 28 days to appeal.
    

Shageeth Somaratne

Resident Magistrate