State v Unare [2007] PGDC 17; DC514 (27 March 2007)

DC514

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

DCCr 52 OF 2007

BETWEEN

STATE

AND

KERRY UNARE
Defendant

Goroka: F MANUE
2007: March 14, 27

Cases Cited
Nil

References
Motor Traffic Act, s 17 (2)
Police Force Act, s 35

Counsel
Sergeant Warkia, For The State
In Person, For The Defendant

27 March 2007

REASONS FOR DECISION

F Manue: The defendant stands charge on two Motor Traffic charges.

2. The defendant first appeared on 16 February 2007 and denied the charge in that he blamed another vehicle in front of him that caused him to sway his vehicle resulting in it capsizing.

3. On his second appearance he changed his plea to that one of Guilty and had foregone the previous explanation. I had it adjourned to decision to 27 March 2007. That I do now.

4. The facts are that on the date as stated at about 3:00 pm the defendant was at Asaro and was driving a Toyota Land Cruiser 10 Seater Registration number EAE 647 on Okuk Highway at Asaroka Primary School to Goroka town. At a very sharp corner near the said primary school the defendant ran off the road into a “V” shape cement drain.

5. Police attended to the scene of the accident and found the vehicle in that position. Police also noticed that the vehicle was a donation to the Kapakamaliki Rural Police Station in the Unggai Bena District.

6. Police also observed that the vehicle ran off the road on the left hand side and they noted that he was standing next to the capsized vehicle.

7. They also noticed the symptoms on the defendant as being drunk or under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Such noticeable signs were that he had reddish and watery eyes, his speech was sever, smell of breath was toxic and that he was not steady on his feet.

8. On these facts the defendant pleaded guilty and made no other statements in defence of the charge. He pleaded guilty and made a statement before sentence. He stated that his case was his first time to get involved in an accident in his 25 years as a policeman. He asked the Court to take into consideration that he was on leave when he was recalled for duty which eventually got involved in the accident. He said had he been allowed to continue his leave, the accident would not have happened.

9. In his favour he is a first offender and that is married with 2 children. He is a policeman based at Kapakamaliki Rural Police Station. He had pleaded guilty to the charge.

10. Section 17 (2) offence under the Motor Traffic Act carries a penalty of not exceeding K500.00 Court fine. Of course the penalty amount is a discretionary matter for each court to impose taking into consideration factors such as the nature of driving without due care, weather condition, road condition, circumstances leading to the offence, antecedent report and so forth.

11. One factor which I have over and again been critical is that of the extend of the use of the road. Where a road is very busy and the offenders commit driving without due care and attention, a heavy penalty must be attracted.

12. This is to ensure extra care, and precaution for the safety of everyone when one is using public roads extensively used by other pedestrians and traffic users. The Okuk Highlands Highway is one such road which is not only used by highly populated five (5) Highlands provinces but other provinces such as Morobe and Madang.

13. Other regions also indirectly use it via the sea ports of Lae and Madang, making it possible as the busiest and most extensively used public road in the country.

14. Therefore, motorist must always take heat and be precautious and be diligent in their driving.

15. I am not saying for once that someone was injured, but am expressing that fact that where a public road is extensively used and a motorist does not take diligent care in his driving then a heavy penalty should be attracted.

16. In this particular case, the defendant was drunk and it seems he was driving behind another truck. In my view he did not take due care and gave the other vehicle a right of way to continue driving ahead. Instead he drove without due care as if he was on a planet without other beings. He was possibly at speed and when he saw the other vehicle he swayed to avoid the other vehicle resulting in him running off the road into the “V” shaped drain.

17. This particular sharp curve is a notorious car accident prone portion. The defendant should have been more prudent in view of his local knowledge of this portion of road.

18. In his allocutus, he has voluntarily suggested to meet at least one half of the costs of the damage to the said vehicle. I am unable to say whether he has gone ahead to do that, through salary deductions.

19. The Motor Traffic Act does not allow for award of damages in relation to or associated to traffic cases.

20. This suggestion cannot be taken as a mitigating factor as it has not been a reality as yet. It is unbecoming of a Police officer on official duty to be drinking and driving.

21. I am of the view that, had he not taken any intoxicating beverage, he would not have involved in the accident. I am of the view that such behaviour should not be tolerated and the penalty imposed must be to deter both him and other policeman from continuing the unbecoming pattern of behaviour.

22. For these brief reasons I propose to impose a heavy Court fine of K500.00 in default six (6) months imprisonment and made recommendation to the Police Commissioner to deduct 20% of his salary to go towards the damages pursuant to Section 35 of the Police Force Act. Such deductions to be for a period of two (2) years. Court fines be paid within 2 days.

Orders: Accordingly

For the State: Sergeant Warkia
For the Defendant: In Person