Iqbal v Reginam [1978] FJSC 40; Criminal Appeal 045 of 1978 (31 July 1978)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI
Appellate Jurisdiction

Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1978

Between:

MOHAMMED IQBAL
s/o MOHAMMED YUSUF

and

REGINAM

JUDGMENT

On the 9th May 1978 at Nausori Magistrates Court the appellant was convicted after trial of dangerous driving contrary to section 38(1) of the Traffic Ordinance and was fined $80 and his licence endorsed.

He has appealed through counsel against conviction on the grounds that he was not identified as the driver of the vehicle beyond reasonable doubt.

It is not too much to say that this ground of appeal is an insult to the intelligence of the Court in view of the fact that, quite apart from other evidence, an independent eye-witness identified the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. He testified, inter alia: "I knew the defendant for a long time. He stays in the same area ... the car of the defendant, Iqbal, overtook me ... the defendant drove in a zig zag manner ... the defendant's car went and banged the middle of that other car ... the first prosecution witness went past the junction and the defendant turned into her ... the defendant hit the first prosecution witness on the right side ... the defendant was overspeeding that is what caused the accident ... after a while the defendant disappeared."

On the hearing of this appeal I called upon the appellant to shew cause why the sentence should not be enhanced as the facts reveal it to be a very bad case of dangerous driving, the appellant having shewn no regard for the safety of other road users. He drove his car on Kings Road at a very fast speed and in such an erratic manner as to collide with a car which was approaching at a moderate speed from the opposite direction on its correct side of the road, striking it with such violence that it overturned and rolled off the road. The lady driver was thrown into the rear seat by the force of the impact and her eight-year old daughter was thrown out of the car, but fortunately landed in the bush about eight yards away instead of on the road surface. Nevertheless the little girl was injured severely enough to be admitted and detained in the Colonial War Memorial Hospital for over two weeks. The fact that she and her mother were not killed or maimed for life is merely fortuitous and not attributable to the appellant.

The standard of driving on the roads of Fiji is deplorable, and the list of casualties from traffic accidents grows longer all the time. It is clear from the cases that come before the courts that road courtesy is rarely practised, that vehicles are driven at an unsafe speed and that there is an alarming failure on the part of drivers to anticipate events. Providing for regular vehicle checks and improving the condition of the roads, while most desirable, will not remedy these deficiencies in driving. What appears to be needed is a very much higher standard of driving instructors and of driving tests, combined with the deterrent effect of heavier penalties in the case of culpable traffic offenders, such as the appellant.

Disqualification from driving, is to my mind the most effective deterrent and the courts have adequate powers to order same, which should be exercised in all deserving cases.

On a first conviction for dangerous driving, disqualification is in the discretion of the court (section 29(1)(a) of the Traffic Ordinance), and this is a proper case for its application.

The appeal against conviction is dismissed, and in addition to the fine imposed by the lower court the appellant is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for six months.

Clifford H. Grant

Chief Justice

Suva,
31st July 1978.