Police v Maki [2004] PGDC 52; DC306 (13 July 2004)

DC306

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 140 OF 2004

Police
Complainant

V

Jacob Maki
Defendant

Date: 13/07/2004
Coram: Sareng

REASON FOR DECISION

FACTS

The defendant was the owner of Vehicle registration number MAA - 793 which was involved in an accident at a "T" Junction near Sir Donald Cleland park. The defendant ran into the left rear of the vehicle of the complainant which was stationary behind a semi trailer which was turning right to go into former Steamships Shipyard.

The defendant in the process of taking over from the left collided into the complainant's vehicle causing damage to left rear of complainant's vehicle. The defendant at the time was driving an unregistered and uninsured vehicle, its registration and insurance cover expired on the 2.12.2003.

LAW

The defendant was charged that, and I quote;

"Being the driver of a motor vehicle to wit Mazda double cab white in colour registration No. MAA 793 upon a public street, to wit at the Junction of Modilon and Kaislan Road, Madang did drive the same without due care and Attention".

Thereby contravening section 17 (2) of the Motor Traffic Act, Chapter 243.

Section 17(2) of the Motor Traffic Act states as follows:

"A person, who drives a motor vehicle on a public street without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other road users, is guilty of an offence. Penalty. A fine not exceeding K500.00."

Section 17 (2) of the MTA is very clear and concise in that it says a person who drives motor vehicle on the public road must drive with due care and attention and must have reasonable consideration for other road users.

In my view what that means is that all drivers a required by law to take the highest standard of care when driving. In a way what it is saying is that the vehicle may be a good thing to have but at the same time it is a very dangerous thing and extreme care must be taken when driving, as it may cause deaths or injuries to people and damage to other vehicles and properties.

Whether or not the defendant had taken into consideration, other road users at the time can only be seen at the manner in which the accident took place. The defendant was the driver of the 3rd vehicle behind the complainant and the semi trailer. It appears the complainant could not immediately overtake the semi trailer when it was turning at the "T" junction and because of the traffic flow there, the complainant waited for the semi trailer to turn before he could over take. When he had enough space he pulled out on the left when defendant who drove the 3rd vehicle drove into complainant's vehicle as he turned left to avoid the tail of the semi trailer in front.

The question of "Who has the right of way to go first" would be a question of fact and law respectively. The defendant was in the 3rd vehicle and he could not overtake the 2nd and the first vehicle simply because he was taking over on a "T" junction without consideration for the vehicle in front and the vehicle coming from the left. The law does not allow for a vehicle to take over from the left, taking over always is on the right unless of course when a vehicle turns to right.

For the defendant to overtake on the left only shows recklessness, irresponsible and inconsiderate of vehicles in front and the traffic at the "T" junction on the left.

The defendant in his defence said he took over because the complainant's signal was to the right and he thought defendant was going to turn right so he took over from the left. I have stated that the traffic was clogged and dangerous at the junction and therefore driver of each vehicle should have taken extra care.

I do not think that the defendant took extra care when he drove up knowing a vehicle was in front, behind a semi trailer which was turning right. Common sense would have prevailed if defendant could foresee the possibility that the vehicle ahead of his vehicle might turn left to avoid the semi trailer that was up ahead.

There are many reasons for defendant to have taken extra care. The vehicle ahead has the right of way to turn left and drive on. I am aware the complainant's vehicle was driving home to Bogia and in no way did it turn right and even if his signal was to the right the defendant should have taken extra care, by waiting his turn to drive on.

I always inform people who come before me and are charged with causing motor traffic accidents that they are driving a very dangerous thing which could cause serious injuries, deaths and damage to properties and are therefore required by law to taken very extreme care. The standard of care required of them is very, very high.

I do not think that people charge with offences of this nature can give any kind of excuse and pass that negligence to another, they should bear the full consequences of their own actions and judgement.

In this case, I am even appalled at defendants ignorance of the law and being a policeman have been driving his vehicle uninsured and unregistered and to have gotten involved in an accident demands a good explanation. I think that throws a serious question on the defendant's evidence and the integrity.

I find defendant to be totally responsible for the accident and accordingly I find him Guilty as charged.

ORDER

I order that defendant be fined K120.00 in default be sentenced to three (3) months in hard labour. I further order that defendant's vehicle be impounded until he registers and insure his vehicle.

I have considered enforcing section 36 of the Motor Traffic Act to suspend defendant's licenses, however, I believe the punishment imposed is sufficient and warrants no other penalties.