Police v Yatus [2021] PGDC 96; DC6050 (19 July 2021)

DC6050

Papua New Guinea

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

SITTING IN ITS TRAFFIC JURISDICTION

WTC NO 163 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

POLICE
[Informant]

AND:

YALA YATUS
[Defendant]

Waigani: Paul Puri Nii

19^th July 2021

TRAFFIC OFFENCE – Fail to Report Traffic Incident - s 33(c) - Road Traffic Regulations

TRAFFIC OFFENCE - Trial- Police - Arresting Officer-Defendant– Traffic infringement Notice –Complainant paid-Defendant denied-Summons to comply Traffic Infringement Notice- Defendant found guilty-Did not comply with traffic Infringement Notice-

PNG Cases Cited:

Nil

Overseas cases cited:
Nil

References

Legislation
Road Traffic Act 2014
Road Traffic Regulations

Counsel
Police Prosecutor: Bigam For the Informant
In person For the Defendant

RULING

17th May 2021

INTRODUCTION

NII, P Magistrate: The Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge of Fail to report Incident

invading Section 33(c) of the Road Traffic Regulations. Trial was administer on 14^th July 2021, and now

is my ruling on verdict. Defendant was arrested and charged because he did not pay a traffic infringement

Notice for not reporting an accident. The Complainant in the Accident was also served Traffic

Infringement Notice and she paid up the fine of K1000.

BACKGROUND FACTS

1. The Police information sheet affords the subsequent facts:
   

“Being the driver of a Motor vehicle, towih a Toyota Land Cruiser two(2) door brownish in color, registration number BCH 702 upon a public street, towit Hibiscus street, and such vehicle concerned in an accident whereby damage was caused, towit did fail to report the accident to a member of police within 24 hours after the accident”

2. On 15^th June 2021, Defendant was arraigned by the court and he pleaded not guilty and hence matter was adjourned for trial. On 24^th June 2021, Defendant appeared in court but state witness not present and matter was further adjourned to 12^th July 2021. On 12^th July 2021, arresting officer did not appear and he was summons to appear in court and explain why he was unable to come to court and on 14^th July 2021, Arresting Officer appeared to court on a Summons and gave evidence in court.
   

ISSUE

3. The question is would the Defendant be accountable for not complying with a Traffic Infringement Notice?
   

PROSECUTION’S ARGUMENT

4. Prosecution has one witness and he is the Arresting officer. He told the court that the Defendant was arrested because of not complying with a Traffic Infringement Notice. Police witness says, Defendant was alleged to have caused an accident along the Hibiscus Street in which he damaged the Complainant’s car. The court was told that a case was registered against the Defendant but due to work commitment Complainant did not turn up to give evidence and as a result a traffic infringement notice was served on the Defendant and the Complainant as fine for not progressing their matter even after when the Defendant was taken in by police for questioning. Witness says, Complainant paid her fine but Defendant did not pay his fine and hence he was arrested and now trial is conducted.
   

DEFENSE ARGUMENT

5. Defendant did not deny the initial allegation but he told the court that he did not pay because he was not issued with a Summons to appear in court to pay the Traffic Infringement fine. Defendant says, a summons form a traffic court should accompany the notice upon default of complying with a Traffic Infringement Notice but in the absence of this he says it was illegal for police to effect arrest under Section 33(c) of the Road Traffic Rules.
   

ANALYSIS OF BOTH CASES

6. I have considered both cases and satisfied that there is no issue about the accident but Defendant denied he was not served with a Summons to go to the court and explain his reasons for not paying the fine. The question this court should ask is should a summons accompany a Traffic Infringement Notice upon default of complying with traffic Infringement Notice?
   

TRAFFIC INFRINGEMENT NOTICE

Section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 2014

36. TRAFFIC INFRINGEMENT NOTICES.

(1) If a traffic enforcement officer is of the reasonable opinion that a person has committed a prescribed offence, the officer may serve on the person a traffic infringement notice.

THE OFFENDING LAW

7. The Defendant before this court was arrested and charged under Section 33(c) of the Road Traffic Rules 2017. The Law is below:
   

33 STOPPING AND REPORTING IN CASE OF ACCIDENTS.

(c) report the accident to a Traffic Enforcement Officer or to the officer-in-charge of the police station nearest the scene of the accident as soon as practicable, in any case within 24 hours.

RULING

8. The Law under Section 33(c) of the Road Traffic Rules 2017, is for parties to a Motor Traffic Accident to report an accident within 24 hours after the accident. It is legal for the Arresting Officer to issue Traffic Infringement notice when parties did not report accident within 24 hours. The Complainant paid up her fine but the Defendant didn’t. Is it legal for the arresting officer to arrest the Defendant upon failure to comply with the Traffic Infringement Notice? Section 37(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 2014, is as follows:
   

37. TRAFFIC INFRINGEMENT SUMMONS.

(1) A traffic enforcement officer may –

(b) serve a traffic infringement summons on a person previously served with a traffic infringement notice if the prescribed penalty in the traffic infringement notice has not been paid in accordance with Section 36.

9. This rule says a person who has been defaulted in payment after issue of Traffic Infringement Notice shall be served with a Summons for him to appear in court and explain. The court hearing the summons will enquire and decide about the Defendant’s default.
   
10. The Defendant was arrested for not complying with a Traffic Infringement Notice. This notice is provided under Section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 2014. The Law under Section 37(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Rules 2014, says if a Traffic Infringement notice is not complied then a Summons shall be served on the defaulting party for him or her to come to the court and justify. The approach undertaken by the Arresting Officer to arrest the Defendant under Section 33(c) of the Road Traffic Rules 2017, for not complying with the Traffic Infringement Notice is an abuse of Process under the Road Traffic Act 2014. The correct approach under the Law is Defendant should have been served with a summons if he had defaulted in the payment.
    

CONCLUSSION

11. In answer to my previous question, the answer is, it is lawful to issue a Summons on the Defendant upon default of complying with a Traffic Infringement Notice. Arresting someone for not complying with a Traffic Infringement Notice is unlawful. The charge of Fail to Report against the Defendant under Section 33(c) of the Road Traffic Rules 2017 is an abuse of Process. It is established that the Defendant’s arrest is not proper under the law.
    

ORDERS

12. The following are the court’s Orders:
    
    1. The charge against the Defendant is dismissed.
    2. Defendant is discharged.
    100. Defendant’s Bail money is refunded.
         

In person For the defendant
Police Prosecutor For the State