Yolen v Kama [2014] PGDC 11; DC1087 (4 March 2014)

DC1087

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

DISTRICT COURT

IN THE MATTER OF WTC. No. 198 OF 2013:

In the Grade 4 Traffic Court of

Justice held at Waigani

Between:

ABEL YOLEN

Informant

And:

MICHAEL KAMA

Defendant

WAIGANI: B. KOME (MAGISTRATE)

2013: 23 May, 8 & 22 November

TRAFFIC INFRINGEMENT – Driving without Due Care and Attention – Both Defendant & Complainant claiming in their evidence that the Traffic lights on their side was green when they drove through – Motor Traffic Act (Ch. No. 243) Sections 17 (2).

Cases Cited:

No cases cited
Counsels: Senior Sergeant Piamu J: Police Prosecution
Defendant In Person

4 March 2014

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. KOME, B. In this Traffic proceeding Defendant, Mr. Michael Kama was charged with one (1) count of driving without due care and attention under Section 17 (2) of the Motor Traffic Act.
2. In the Police Information, the charge stated that on the 1^st of March 2013, Defendant drove a motor vehicle, described as a Toyota Camry, Registration number BDO 062 upon a public road, namely Waigani, in particular at the Boroko Motors Traffic Lights intersection.
3. Defendant was arraigned on the 6^th of May 2013 and he denied the charge. The matter was then set for Trial which was conducted on 23^rd May and continued on the 8^th and 22^nd of November 2013. The delay between the month of May and November was due to the absence of the Magistrate in which he was on sick leave.

BRIEF FACTS

4. On 1 March 2013, Defendant (Michael Kama) drove his vehicle (described above) along the freeway from Vision City towards the Traffic Lights intersection at Boroko Motors late in the night. At the Traffic Lights zone, his vehicle collided with another vehicle, a Ford sedan, registration number BBD 894, owned and driven by the Complainant, Mr. Lucas Sikin. The accident occurred around 11.30 pm.
5. Complainant’s vehicle was bumped around the front left hand side while Defendant’s vehicle had damages to its front right side. It appears from the evidence that the accident occurred in the of the Traffic lights intersection and after the accident the Complainant’s vehicle spun around and faced towards Boroko Motors.
6. The Defendant realized that an accident had occurred and fearing for his life, drove off down the road coming up from Gordons and left his vehicle around the vicinity of his office which is the PNG Pest Control.
   

DISPUTED FACTS:

7. The facts in dispute are basically that both parties argue in their evidence that the light was green on their side when they drove in. Defendant gave evidence that the lights were green when he drove up and as he entered the traffic lights zone, it changed to Orange.
8. Complainant on the other hand stated in Court that the lights were green and that there were two (2) or three (3) vehicles in front and some more behind him when they drove through the intersection.
   

ISSUE:

9. Whether the Defendant drove without due care and attention which resulted in the accident.
   

RELEVANT LAWS

10. The applicable laws in this proceeding are Section 17 (2) of the Motor Traffic Act.

17. DANGEROUS DRIVING AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING.

(2) 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.

DISCUSSION OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE

11. Prosecution called two (2) other witnesses aside from the Complainant and they all gave sworn evidence. Their second witness, Jack Yamao, gave evidence that he was driving a vehicle behind Complainant’s vehicle when the accident occurred. Mr. Yamao state that he was driving the vehicle behind Complainant and that the lights were green and they were crossing the traffic lights intersection over to the road going to Gordons when the Defendant’s vehicle coming from Gerehu bumped Complainant’s vehicle.
    
12. Mr Yamao stated that he did not know the Complainant but had stopped on the other side of the road going to Gordons in front of the ANZ Bank when Complainant had walked across and asked him for his details so that he could call him later if he needed to.
    
13. The third Prosecution witness was Mr. Abel Yolen, the traffic officer who got the reports of the accident and went to check the accident site. This witness gave evidence of his investigation. Among other things, Mr. Yolen stated that from the broken glass and other things from the accident, he worked out that the vehicles had bumped around the middle of the intersection (inner lane) and ended up on the road coming up from Gordons towards the Traffic lights.
    
14. For the Defence, two (2) other witnesses were called to give evidence. These were Steven Erapa and Nigel Aisa. Mr. Erapa said he was around the area where the accident had occurred while Mr. Aisa was the passenger in Defendant’s vehicle when the accident occurred.
    
15. The Court considered the evidence of Mr. Steven Erapa for the Defence and noted that there were a lot of contradictions. Initially he said he was driving up Tisa Haus from Vision City when the accident occurred and that he witnessed the accident. This road is however on a different area from the road in issue. Mr. Erapa later changed his story and said he was driving up Club 22 from Gordons and was behind Defendant’s vehicle. That cannot be the case because Defendant was traveling from Gerehu way. Witness also said Complainant’s vehicle was coming from Morata which is totally wrong from the accepted evidence. Based on these contradictions, this witness story cannot be accepted as reliable evidence.
    
16. Defendant had said in his evidence and affidavit that the lights were still green when he drove into the traffic lights zone. That as he entered the traffic lights zone, the lights changed to orange. His other witness, Mr. Aisa however gave evidence that as they approached the Traffic lights, the lights changed to orange and they drove in.
    
17. When Mr. Aisa was asked to estimate the distance where they were when the lights changed to orange, he gave a distance in the courtroom which was estimated by the Court to be around 10 meters. Mr. Aisa also stated that Defendant was drunk during the day but had rested and was sober at the time of the accident.
    
18. In considering the Defence case, Mr. Aisa is a key witness as he was in the Defendant’s car when the accident occurred. His evidence as to the color of the lights is crucial and it is obvious that it contradicts Defendant’s evidence, who said the lights were green when he drove in.
    
19. The evidence of the Prosecution witnesses do not contradict each other. Complainant said the lights were green when he drove behind two (2) or three (3) vehicles into the traffic lights zone and the driver of the vehicle behind him, Mr. Yamao also confirmed that story in his evidence.
    

FINDINGS.

20. After careful consideration of all the evidence before the Court, it is the Court’s view that Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant had driven without due care and attention, resulting in the accident.
    
21. The Court notes the evidence of the Defendant but his witness evidence is insufficient to prove that he is innocent. As stated above, his witness’ evidence is inconsistent and contradictory to his story.
    
22. The Court notes from the evidence that there was a line of vehicles already crossing over from Boroko way down to Gordons at the intersection when Defendant’s vehicle hit Complainant’s vehicle. It is also common knowledge and common sense that when the lights turn to orange, vehicle must slow down and stop to avoid accidents.
    

ORDERS

23. Court therefore finds that the Defendant is Guilty as charged. That he had driven without due care and attention thus causing the accident between his vehicle and that of the Complainant.
    
24. This matter is now adjourned to the 13 March 2014 for Court to hear submissions on penalty and sentencing.
    

Senior Sergeant Piamu J: Police Prosecution

Defendant In Person