Director of Public Prosecutions v Raikabula [1977] FJSC 116; Criminal Appeal 97 of 1977 (29 September 1977)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 97 OF 1977

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Appellant

v

1. APENISA RAIKABULA
2. VATILIAI RAGEDE
Respondents

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions from the acquittal by the Magistrates Court Suva on the 11th July 1977 of the respondents of the offence of Obstruction contrary to section 12 of the Minor Offences Act No.10 of 1971.

There are two grounds of appeal as under:

"(a) The learned Magistrate wrongly held that blockage of a public road was necessary to constitute the offence of obstruction.

(b) The learned Magistrate wrongly relied on extraneous matters never in evidence."

P.W.1, a police corporal whose name does not appear in the record, was on duty in a landrover after midnight on the 10th July, 1977. He was on patrol in Ratu Mara Road and there was a crowd blocking the road. After the horn of the landrover was blown all the crowd except the two respondents moved away. The horn was blown again but the respondents refused to move and stood in the middle of the road in the path of the landrover.

The witness spoke to the second respondent who said "come on". The respondents were arrested.

Both the respondents made unsworn statements. Their stories which were similar were that there had been an incident of stone throwing at a taxi that night. They arrived at the junction of the road just as the police landrover was returning. They said that the landrover tooted its horn, went past them and stopped. The driver asked them what they were doing there and they stated they were coming back from a dance and were waiting for a taxi. While they were talking to the driver they said a police officer came and got hold of the second respondent's shirt and dragged him to the landrover and he and the other respondent were then taken to the Samabula Police Station.

The trial Magistrate's judgment is brief and was as follows:

"I find it hard to believe two men could block Ratu Mara Road.

I suspect that there was some confrontation between army and police. This occasionally happens. What part the stoning of a taxi played I do not know.

I have a doubt as to whether the police or the army took the offensive on this occasion. "One-upmanship" not criminal offence.

Defendants found not guilty and acquitted."

It will be noted that the trial Magistrate made no findings of fact but it is apparent from the first paragraph that he accepted P.W.1's evidence so far as blocking the road was concerned.

While I have sympathy for Magistrates who have to hear and decide a large number of cases and are called on to write judgments in cases involving very minor offences where in other countries such cases are dealt with summarily even to the extent of not recording evidence, it is necessary to write a judgment in a defended case. It is not necessary to restate all the facts in a judgment and in cases such as the instant one a brief summary of and finding on the essential facts constituting the offence is sufficient.

Section 12 of the Minor Offences Act 10 of 1971 provides as follows:

"12. Any person who without lawful excuse obstructs in any way the free passage of any public road, or who in any manner wilfully prevents any person from passing him on a public road, or who by negligence or misbehaviour prevents or interferes with the free passage on any public road of any person or vehicle shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding forty dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months."

This section is much fuller than section 121 of the Highways Act 1959 (Imp) which covers any wilful obstruction of free passage along a highway. Our section 12 goes further and covers conduct preventing any person from passing another person on a public road or the free passage of any person or vehicle.

In the case of Homer v. Cadman (1886) 55 LJ. MC 110 it was held that to obstruct part of the road is an offence under section 121 of the Highways Act. This was a case where a man marched into a "Bull Ring" and there addressed a crowd who gathered around him. He was convicted notwithstanding that there was free space for traffic outside the crowd. His action in assembling the crowd was to render the highway less convenient and commodious.

The trial Magistrate as he stated found it hard to believe that two men could block Ratu Mara Road.

Section 10 of the Minor Offences Act does not require that the obstruction should block the road. Any wilful interference with the free passage of any person or vehicle on a public road by misbehaviour is sufficient to constitute the offence.

The facts in this instant case are clear that the two respondents without lawful excuse by their misbehaviour in refusing to move away from the path of the landrover prevented or interfered with the free passage on a public road of that vehicle. The respondents on the facts should have been convicted by the trial Magistrate.

The minor nature of the offence does not in my view require that the case be remitted to the trial Magistrate with a direction to convict the appellants and I exercise my powers under section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The appeal is allowed. The order of the trial Magistrate acquitting the respondents is set aside and they are both convicted of the offence of Obstruction contrary to section 12 of the Minor Offences Act 10 of 1971.

(SGD) R. G. Kermode
JUDGE

Suva,
29th September, 1977.