IN THE FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT NAUSORI
FIJI ISLANDS
Traffic Case No: 5018 of 2009

State

V

Inia Mekemeke

For Prosecution: Ms Serukai (DPP)
Accused: Present – Mr Chand (Legal Aid) 

JUDGMENT
Introduction
The accused in this case is charged with Dangerous Driving, contrary to Section 98 (1) and 114 of The Land Transport Act 35 of 1998.
The particulars of the offence is that: "Inia Mekemeke on the 20th day of November 2009 at Koonivia, Nausori in the Eastern Division drove a motor vehicle registration number GN184 in a manner dangerous to the public."
The Law and The elements of the offence 
Dangerous Driving is defined by s. 98 (1) of the Land Transport Act. 
Dangerous Driving is defined by s. 98 (1) of the Land Transport Act as driving  "on a public street recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is  dangerous  to the public having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the nature, condition and use of the public street and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be on the public street".
In Lasike v State, Fiji Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No HAA 58 of 2002 (13th September, 2002) the Court of Appeal defined  dangerous driving   as follows:
" Dangerous driving  is the causing of a  dangerous  situation by a manner of  driving  which falls below the standard expected of a prudent driver."
The elements of Dangerous Driving  that the prosecution is required to prove beyond the reasonable doubts is: 
i.	That accused person, 
ii.	Drove a motor vehicle on a public street, 
iii.	Recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is  dangerous  to the public, 
The Defence agreed in Court that they did not dispute the date, identification, time or that the accused person drove GN184 on the day. The single most important issue for the Court to determine in this case is whether the accused drove dangerously or not. 

The Evidences of the Witnesses

The Prosecution called 2 witnesses. PW- 1 – Sundar Lal and PW-2 – WPC Maria. 
At the close of the prosecution case, the Court ruled a case to answer. The accused was put to his defence and the options available to him were explained to him. The accused chose to give sworn evidence. The accused did not call any other witnesses. 
Analysis of the Evidence in Relation to the Law

This Court has noted the evidence of all the witnesses. The Court has also scrutinized the sketchs of the scene tendered by the Prosecution. 
From the agreed facts this Court finds that there is no dispute in this case as to the following elements of the offence; the identification of the accused, the date and time of the offence and that the accused drove GN184. The only issue for this Court to determine is whether the accused drove dangerously or not. 
The evidence of PW-1 a passenger in the other vehicle that was involved in the accident was that the vehicle the accused drove come to their side of the road and collided with their taxi. Sundar Lal further told the court that the accused was travelling at a high speed. The evidence of the accused was that he was chasing a drug suspect and driving at a speed of about 80 to 100 km/hr. The accused did not deny he passed on the right side of the bus in front of him. His evidence was that 3 cars went to side but the taxi did not go to the side.
From the evidence in Court of the witnesses it is clear that the accused was speeding and was travelling at a speed over 80 km/hr. He collided with the taxi on the opposite lane. The explanation of the accused is that the suspect overtook the bus on the left side and to catch him he overtook the bus on the right side. In the process of overtaking the bus on the right side the police vehicle driven by the accused collided on the opposite lane. The Court notes the explanation given by the accused it is clear that the accused took unreasonable risk. He overtook when it was not clear for him to overtake. Pursuit of suspects must be without creating risks for the others, which include members of the public. No lives must be under any threat when suspects are pursued. The lights of the vehicle were working and the siren was not. At “police business” siren must be on and working. It was the responsibility of the accused to see when he drove that the sirens were working. The accused should have exercised caution. He did not exercise caution at the peak hour when traffic was heavy. His driving was reckless. His standard was not of a prudent driver. He took unnecessary risks and endangered other lives on the road. The accused is responsible for the accident he caused.   
This Court is satisfied that the accused drove dangerously and caused the accident. For the above-mentioned reasons this court is satisfied that the charge of dangerous driving against the accused is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is convicted as charged. This Court will now hear the accused's mitigation. 

Chaitanya Lakshman
Resident Magistrate
31st May 2016