Regina v Wei Li Wu [2001] SBHC 118; HC-CRC 148 of 2001 (22 June 2001)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
AT HONIARA

CRIMINAL REVIEW CASE NUMBER 148 OF 2001

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

REGINA

-V-

WEI LI WU

DATE OF REVIEW: 22ND JUNE 2001

PALMER J.: The Central Magistrate’s Court file (CRC 200/2001 CMC) was sent to this Court for purposes of review under section 47(1) of the Magistrates’ Court (Cap. 20). The presiding Magistrate had arraigned the accused and convicted him on his guilty plea. Accused was fined $200-00 and his licence endorsed. It appears after sentencing, the learned Magistrate felt the accused should have been disqualified and so asks this Court to intervene. With respect this is not good practice. Magistrates must take time to consider the facts of each case carefully before passing sentence. Once sentence had been passed it should then go on next to consider whether disqualification is appropriate in the circumstances or not. Part II of the Schedule to the Traffic Act [Cap. 131] contains a list of offences involving discretionary disqualification which Magistrates should be familiar with.

I have had opportunity to consider carefully the record of proceedings transmitted and also make note of the following. The facts with respect appear to show a much more serious offence had been committed (possibly an offence under section 39 of the Traffic Act). It is not clear therefore why the accused had been charged with a less serious offence. I quote the facts as produced before the Magistrates Court:

“Opposite Bahai Centre bus stop the vehicle travelled zigzagging, which the defendant couldn’t controlled the steering. He continued drove on and ran off the main road and collided with two (2) pedestrians standing by the road side, before hitting a tree on the left side of road. Victims received external and internal injuries and were both admitted in Central Hospital. The vehicle itself sustain severe damage, including defendant received injuries on his body.”

The facts did not reveal what caused the vehicle to go zigzagging and out of control. It could be due to over-speeding, something to do with the driver (like being beaten by a swarm of bees), drunkenness or something to do with the vehicle itself. The investigations carried out by Traffic Officers at the scene should be able to identify the causes of this traffic accident, which on the surface appears to be quite serious. The accused did not say anything in mitigation about the accident, which is a bit surprising considering that two innocent pedestrians standing on the side of the road were seriously injured through this accident. I am concerned there might be tampering of charges so that the appropriate charge is not being made against the accused. The Director of Traffic should have a look at the investigations carried out on this case and issue necessary directions where appropriate, including any appropriate charges to be drawn up and the kind of facts to be produced to a court for purposes of a hearing. I am sure the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is always available to provide assistance to Prosecuting Officers in drawing up charges and facts to be presented before a court. Accordingly I am sending this matter back to the court below for a fresh hearing and direct that the learned Magistrate require further and better particulars of facts to be drawn up that would enable her to deal with this case properly and if need be additional or substitute charges to be drawn. The case should be listed for hearing before the next sitting of the Traffic Court and the accused summoned to appear. The conviction and sentence is set aside and the matter remitted to the court below for re-hearing. The fine of $200-00 may be returned to the accused or held to his credit pending re-hearing of his case.

THE ORDERS OF THE COURT:

1. Set aside conviction and sentence.
   
2. Remit case to the Magistrates’ Court for re-hearing and plea.
   
3. Direct that further and better particulars of facts of the case be drawn up and provided for the court below by the Prosecuting Traffic Officer.
   
4. The Presiding Magistrate to consider whether additional or substitute charges should be drawn up against the accused in the light of additional evidence or facts.
   

THE COURT.