Sakias v Nari [1998] PGDC 15; DC38 (22 September 1998)

Unreported District Court Decisions

[1998] PNGDC 15 - HERBERT SAKIAS V MOSES NARI

[1998] PNGDC 15

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

NO 181 AND 182 OF 1998

HERBERT SAKIAS (Informant)

v

MOSES NARI (Defendant)

Kimbe

P Monouluk M

22 September 1998

CRIMINAL LAW - Motor Traffic Act (Ch243) - driving recklessly - unlicenced driving.

EVIDENCE - cross examination of witness to put adverse case - Not done.

Cases referred to:

Browne v Dunn [1894] 6 R 67 (HL)

State v Manasseh Voeta [1978] PNGLR 119

Representation:

Counsel/Representative:

Informant: Sergeant J. Turan

Defendant: In person

P MONOULUK M:

N1>[1]      The defendant is charged under s17(1) and s21(1) of the Motor Traffic Act (Ch243) for driving recklessly and without licence respectively. The informant alleges that on 15 August 1998 at about 6am the defendant whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor and being unlicenced drove a government vehicle recklessly and bumped into a building consequently damaging the vehicle.

N1>[2]      The prosecution called four (4) witnesses who are all policemen. The witnesses agree that the defendant is the chairman of the Green Sector Police at Section 15/42 Kimbe, WNBP: an exercise by the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary in Kimbe inconjunction with business houses and various suburbs in the town area to curb the raising criminal behavior in Kimbe.

N1>[3]      At the time of the incident the witnesses agree that defendant was drunk and was in possession of a key to a vehicle donated by the Provincial government to assist the Green Sector Police to help in its operation, in fact, that was the only vehicle used by the sector.

N1>[4]      The second prosecution witness (Benny Pandi) gave evidence that he was physically present when the defendant being drunk as he was got in the vehicle with his son and reversed the vehicle which was left there earlier on by witnesses Gervasius Rovi and David Pumi and did two (2) U-turns in front of a shop apparently to show off his driving skills (if any) and in the process bumped into the shop damaging the front of the vehicle.

N1>[5]      The defendant called no witnesses but agreed that he has no driving licence but says that the damage to the vehicle was caused by a falling roofing iron sheet. Under cross examination the defendant failed to give a clear explanation as to why the falling roofing iron sheet did not damage the top bonnet of the vehicle but the front side of the vehicle including the lights instead. In any case, the court could not accept such explanation simply because the prosecution witnesses were never cross examined by the defendant as to the 'falling roofing iron sheet' theory to give the witnesses an opportunity to further explain on that as in line with the ruling in the celebrated case of Browne v Dunn [1894] 6 R 67 (HL) and applied in the State v Manasseh Voeta [1978] PNGLR 119. Based on these facts I find the defendant guilty as charged for the two (2) offences.

N1>[6]      I accept the fact that the defendant is a first time offender, however I take into consideration that the defendant on three (3) appearances (including the trial date) vigorously denied both allegations. Threats were also issued against prosecution witnesses not to appear to give evidence and one witness was subsequently assaulted by the defendant immediately prior to the trial date.

N1>[7]      The vehicle was donated by the Provincial government to help the Sector carryout community policing. These days it is very difficult to obtain government funding and whatever help is given must be used wisely and with utmost care. Now that the vehicle is damaged and off the road the Green Sector cannot effectively carryout its objectives and duties.

N1>[8]      The defendant being off duty and his drunken state at the time of the incident is also worth considering. I take judicial notice of high incident of accidents where people drive under the influence of liquor. It is fortunate no one was killed or injured or it would have been very serious but the mere fact of drink driving is serious in itself. A driver when driving must remind himself of being in control of a potentially dangerous machine that is why it is necessary that driver under go tests before issued licences.

N1>[9]      I also take note that the defendant is no ordinary citizen he is a senior citizen and the chairman of the Green Sector Police Station. He himself is a reserve policeman and holds a position of respect and trust and the community naturally will look up to him as a leader and an elder with regard to law and order. Any person of his caliber that steps out of line cannot expect the courts to be lenient on him especially when he should be an example to the community at large.

N1>[10]    I had the benefit to consider the defendants health and age and also I had to remind myself of the need for deterrent purposes given the high incidences of traffic accidents in WNBP alone. Otherwise there was no extenuating circumstances under which the two (2) offences were committed therefore I consider three (3) months IHL. Sentence be served concurrently. Bail refunded.

N1>[11]    Orders Accordingly.

v>