Police v Stanley [2021] PGDC 72; DC6027 (16 June 2021)

D6027

Papua New Guinea

[In the Criminal Jurisdictions of the District Court Held at Waigani]

SITTING IN ITS TRAFFIC JURISDICTION

WTC NO 66-68 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
[Informant]

AND:

JARDIN STANLEY
[Defendant]

His worship Paul P Nii

16^st June 2021

TRAFFIC OFFENCE- Reckless driving - s 39(1) – Unregistered Motor vehicle – s 22(1)(a) and Without Being licensed – s 7(a) of Road Traffic Regulations 2017

TRAFFIC OFFENCE- Trial- witness- Evidence- Decision on Verdict- Allegations of reckless driving -an unregistered motor vehicle while without being licensed-established Elements – sustained- guilty.

PNG Cases cited:

Police v Naliga [2021] PGDC 55; DC6013 (31 May 2021)

Overseas cases cited:
Nil

REFERENCE

Legislation
Road Traffic Regulations 2017

Counsel
Police Prosecutor: J Wamuru For the Informant
In person For the Defendant

RULING ON VERDICT

16^th June 2021

INTRODUCTION

NII, P Magistrate: Defendant pleaded not guilty to all the three (3) charges under which

He was charged with. Trial was administered on 8^th March 2021, both parties

gave evidence. Police through the arresting officer and the Defendant by himself and

now is my ruling on verdict.

FACTS

1. Defendant was arrested by police on three (3) different traffic offences. The allegations against the Defendant are; Reckless Driving, Unregistered Motor Vehicle and Drive without license. Police allege on 26^th February 2021, Defendant now before this court was a driver of a vehicle where its description is; a Toyota Prado station wagon, blue in color with the registration number HAN 754. That vehicle was driven by the Defendant on the date of allegation. Police allege, the vehicle was unregistered and Defendant drove the vehicle recklessly. Police further allege Defendant had failed to produce his license when asked by the arresting officer.
   

ISSUE

2. Whether the Defendant is guilty on the charges of reckless driving, driving an unregistered motor vehicle and driving without being licensed.
   

RELEVANT LAWS

3. Following are the laws under which the Defendant is charged with:
   

Section 39(1) of the Road Traffic Act

39. RECKLESS AND DANGEROUS DRIVING.

(1) A person who drives a motor vehicle in a reckless or dangerous manner on a public street is guilty of ah offence.

Penalty: A fine not exceeding Kl0,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or both.

Section 22(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Rules Act

22 DRIVING AN UNREGISTERED MOTOR VEHICLE
(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this Section, a person must not–
(a) drive an unregistered motor vehicle on a public street.

Section 7(a) of the Road Traffic Rules

7 DRIVERS REQUIRE A CURRENT PERMIT OR LICENCE
A person must not–

(a) drive a motor vehicle on a public street

ELEMENTS

4. The elements of each offence should substantiate the allegations or the charges against the Defendant is charged with; however, if police fail to meet the requirements in their evidence then the court will not proceed to hold the Defendant liable. Consequently, the court will assess evidence presented by State witness in line with the three (3) charges and come up with a decision.
   

EVIDENCE

5. I have given prominence that only evidence will prove a case against the Defendant. The importance of establishing a case based on evidence is found in Police v Naliga^[1]...(emphasis added)
   

“A more and comprehensive material to the realities is though witness from the Prosecution and Defense who came to the court to give evidence. An allegation will only be proven through evidence since it is the accessible body of facts or material designating whether the allegation against the Defendant is proper or made-up”

I have administrated in the above case and ruled that the trustworthiness of evidence is tested only in trial. Only evidence will regulate the rise and fall of police case.

Norah Bobola –Arresting Officer

6. She is a Police woman assigned with four mile traffic police. She has been with the designation for over five (5) years. She identified the Defendant as the accused who was arrested by her for the three (3) offences. The arresting officer said she was on duty at the time of the accident. Witness says Defendant was arrested and taken to Gerehu police station and later to four (4) mile where he was formally charged for the offences.
   
7. Witness says Defendant was under the influence of liquor when the accident occurred. Witness says, she was informed by the Defendant that he lost his license at the accident scene but her mother said Defendant had no license. State witness says, when the vehicle owner was contacted about the registration status of the vehicle, he admitted that his vehicle was not registered. However, on cross examination, Defendant denied that he lost his license at the accident scene but said he had no license.
   

Jardin Statnely-Accused

8. Defendant says he was fully drunk and was asleep at the time of accident and hence bystanders came and woke him up. Defendant says he was unaware of what happened. Defendant says, he did not say a word when he was taken to Boroko police station to be charged for the offences. Defendant denied that he was the driver of the vehicle and shifted the blame to another person named Javis Solomon. Defendant says Mr Solomon was the person that drove the vehicle and not him.
   

DISPUTED AND UNDISPUTED FACTS

Undisputed facts

1. The Defendant was drunk
2. Defendant was in the vehicle that involved in an accident
   

Disputed facts

1. Defendant was the driver.
2. Defendant had no license.
   

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE

9. I have considered the evidences presented in court by the accused and Police. Defendant says he was not the driver and at the time of accident he had no license while police sys he was the driver and was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident. Police also say the Defendant was driving an unregistered vehicle.
   

RULINGS

10. When assessing the evidence, I am convinced that the Defendant was drunk and was in the car that was involved in the accident. Defendant admitted that he was drunk and was in the vehicle but denied he was not the driver but Javis Solomon was the driver. Defendant says he can’t recall what happened as he was drunk and was asleep but Defendant admitted that him and Javis Solomon were drunk. I have evidence that few moments before the accident there were two(2) people in the car and were drinking, these people are the Defendant and Javis Solomon. The question that I will ask myself is how would I know that the Defendant is the Driver of the vehicle that was involved in the accident? Since the Defendant denied that he was not the driver, I will need to look at the evidence again.
    
11. There is evidence that the Defendant was drunk and was in the vehicle when he was arrested. Defendant admitted that he did not know what happened because he was drunk and did not drive. How would someone take the blame for another person’s wrong? The Only person in the history of mankind that sacrifices his life and took the blame for other people to die as we all know as written in the Holy bible is Jesus Christ, the son of God, apart from this no man is a saint. If Javis Solomon was involved in the accident then why he was not arrested or is it some kind of conspiracy between Javis Solomon and the Defendant that a person who had no license and did not drive would take the blame for someone who had license and drive? To me this argument is baseless and it is not sound in law. Since the Defendant admitted that he was drunk and did not know what happened at the time of accident indicated to me that the Defendant was drunk and involved in the accident and therefore he can’t recall what happened.
    

CONCLUSSION

12. I am therefore satisfied that the Defendant now in court is the driver of the motor vehicle that was involved in the accident. I also have evidence to convince myself that the vehicle was not registered and since the Defendant was drunk, he was driving recklessly.
    

ORDERS

13. I make the following orders:
    

1. Defendant found guilty on all the three(3) charges.
2. Matter adjourned to 17^th June 2021 @ 9.30 for decision on penalty.

100. Bail is extended.
     

In person For the defendant
Police Prosecutor For the State

---

^[1] [2021] PGDC 55; DC6013 (31 May 2021)