Wilson v Reginam [1981] FJSC 10; Criminal Appeal 107 of 1980 (23 January 1981)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI
Appellate Jurisdiction

Criminal Appeal No 107 of 1980

VICTOR RAJENDRA WILSON
s/o CHARLES WILSON

AND:

REGINAM

K. Chauhan for the Appellant.
R. Lindsay for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

On 26th August 1980 the appellant was convicted after trial by the Suva Magistrate's Court of careless driving n that on 14th March 1980 at Suva appellant drove his motor vehicle on Renwick Road without due care and attention. Upon his conviction appellant was fined $50 and disqualified from holding a driving licence for two months.

The appeal is against sentence only which is claimed be harsh and excessive having regard to all the circumstances.

The facts show that on 14th March, 1980 the appellant driving a white Holden taxi Reg. No. Y431 was among a line of cars travelling down Renwick Road towards Victoria Parade. The road was fairly busy and the cars were forced to move more or less slowly in what was described as "stop and Start" maneuver. Because of momentary inattention appellant tilled to stop in time to avoid bumping into another taxi Reg. AR566 in front of him which in turn bumped a private car Reg. No.. A0987. The two cars sustained some damage.

The main bone of contention in this appeal is that learned Magistrate when sentencing the appellant should not have taken into account a "previous" conviction for an offence (careless driving among others) which was committed on date later in point of time to the offence under review in this appeal. The case referred to is Suva Criminal Case 6481/80 in which the offence was on 22^nd April 1980. There are ample authorities supporting counsel's contention. I need not go into them as I think the matter is clear enough. In this case appellant was unnecessarily prejudiced in that record had been wrongly represented. It may well be that the order of disqualification from driving for two months would not have been imposed on appellant if the offences of 22^nd April had been disregarded for the purpose of sentencing appellant the March conviction.

In these circumstances I think the appeal should allowed to the extent only of quashing the order of disqualification which was imposed on appellant in the court below. It is ordered accordingly.

(T.U. Tuivaga)
Chief Justice

Suva,
23^rd January, 1981.