Toa v Reginam [1979] FJSC 4; Criminal Appeal 074 of 1979 (20 July 1979)

Fiji Islands - Toa v Reginam - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1979

BETWEEN:

PENI TOA

AND

REGINAM

JUDGMENT

The appellant appeals against his conviction by Suva Magistrate's court of failing to conform to the indication given by a traffic sign contrary to section 53(1)(c) and section 85 of the Traffic Ordinance.

The only evidence for the prosecution was that of a police constable who stated that he was standing by the traffic lights in Usher Street beyond the junction with Scott Street when he saw a car in Usher Street approaching the lights which turned red, that a man started crossing a pedestrian crossing, and that the car drove on to the crossing nearly hitting the pedestrian. As a result the lanellant who was driving the motor car was charged with failing to conform to a red traffic light.

The poconstable produced a plan of the scene which shews quite clearly that the pedestrian crossirossing is situated in front of the traffic lights in question; and consequently when the appellant’s motor car encroached on the pedestrian crossing it had not proceeded beyond the traffic lights.

Regulation 19(1)(a) of the Traffic (Signs) Regulations 1975 provides that:-

“19.-(1) The significance of the traffic lights shall be as follows:-

(a) that the red signal alone shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line on the carriageway provided in conjunction with the signals or, if that line is not for the time being visible or there is no stop line, beyond the signals;”

Regulation 19(3) of the same Regulations provides that:-

“19.-(3) For the purpose of this regulation the expression “Stop line” means the road marking shewn in Mark 101 in the Second Schedule to these Regulations.”

Mark 101 in the second Schedule to the same Regulations illustrates a solid transverse line twelve inches in width which may be marked on the road to indicate the position beyond which vehicular traffic must not proceed when required to stop by light signals.

There was no evidence whatsoever before the trial court of any stop line being marked on the road or of the appellant having proceeded beyond a stop line, nor did the prosecution lead any evidence of the appellant’s motor car having proceeded beyond the traffic lights while the signal was shewing red.

The conviction therefore must be quashed and the sentence set aside.

Chief Justice

Suva,
20 July, 1979