State v Lagot [1999] PGDC 15; DC61 (22 July 1999)

Unreported District Court Decisions

[1999] PNGDC 9 - STATE V DORCAS LAGOT

[1999] PNGDC 9

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

NO 891 OF 1999

PARTIES:  THE STATE

INFORMANT

V

DORCAS LAGOT

DEFENDANT

Waigani

Vagi PM

22 July 1999

Cases Cited

Jones v Prothero [1952] 1 All ER 434

Legislation Cited

Motor Traffic Act s24(c)

Representation

Counsel/Representative

Informant:  Sergeant Wafihambu

Defendant:  Defendant in person

Lawyers/Representative

Informant:  Sergeant Wafihambu

Defendant:  Defendant in person

22 July 1999

VAGI PM:

N1>[1]      The defendant is charged that on 29 March 1999 at Port Moresby, she being the driver of a Motor Vehicle, a Mazda station Wagon 323, white in colour and registered number JAA. 411 which was involved in an accident whereby damage was caused did fail to report the accident to the Officer in charge of the Police Station nearest the scene of the accident as soon as practicable after the accident or within 24 hours after the accident.

N1>[2]      The essential facts as highlighted in this case and which are not in dispute are that on the date of the offence which was on 29 of March 1999, the Defendant drove the Motor Vehicle a Mazda station Wagon 323, white in colour registered number JAA. 411 to the Revenue House, she parked the vehicle in front of the Revenue House parking area and went in to the Revenue house for some official Business. After a while in the Revenue House, the defendant then came out and discovered that another vehicle had collided in to her vehicle causing minor damage to her vehicle. As the other driver who had collided in to her vehicle was still at the scene of the accident, the Defendant, approached him and after a short discussion, both the defendant and the other driver then approached the Town Police Station, and reported the accident to a Policeman at the Town Police Station, who then told them to report the accident at the Four Mile Traffic Police Station.

N1>[3]      While the other driver, the cause of the accident, reported the accident at the 4 mile Traffic Police Station, the Defendant failed to do so. As a result she was arrested two days later and was charged for the offence for which she now stands Trial before me.

N1>[4]      The Defendant contended in her defence that as she had left the Vehicle in the parking lot in front of the Revenue House, therefore she was not a driver inter alia within the meaning of s24(c) of Motor Traffic Act of which she stands charged.

N1>[5]      S24(c) of the Motor Traffic Act,

N1>[6]      Reads:

"Where injury or damage is caused to a person or to an animal or vehicle in the charge of a person because of an accident in which a Motor Vehicle is concerned, if the driver of the Motor Vehicle:

(c)      fails to report the accident to the officer in charge of the Police Station nearest the scene of the accident as soon as practicable and in any case within 24 hours is guilty of an offence.

Penalty:        A fine not exceeding K500.00."

N1>[7]      The English case of Jones v Prothero [1952] 1 All ER 434 directly discusses this issue and in that Appeal case of Jones v Prothero (supra) the driver (the appellant) had stopped his motor vehicle on the near side of a public road, switched off the engine and remained in his seat talking to his passenger for some ten minutes. He then opened the driver's door and in doing so he struck a pedal cyclist who was passing and failed to report the accident.

N1>[8]      On appeal the appellant contended that as he had stopped the engine for some substantial time, before the accident happened he was not the driver within the meaning of s22(2) of the Motor Traffic Act which is the equivalent of our s24 of Motor Traffic Act of which the defendant is charged. The appeal court in its decision held that: ". . . the 'driver' is the person who takes out the vehicle, and he remains the driver until he finishes his journey" and therefore the appellant was guilty of an offence under s22(2) of the Motor Traffic Act.

N1>[9]      Adopting the views expressed in that case I am satisfied that the defendant was the driver at the time of accident although she had left the vehicle to attend to some business at the Revenue House, when the accident occurred.

N1>[10]    I therefore find beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty as charged. Defendant cautioned and discharged.

Sergeant Wafihambu for the State

Defendant in person