R v Taro [2011] SBMC 17; Criminal Case 1006 of 2011 (14 December 2011)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATE COURT

Criminal Case No. 1006/2011

R

V

FLORENCE TARO

Date of Hearing: 12 &13 Dec 2011
Date of Judgment: 14 Dec 2011

Pros: Ms L. Feneanganofo
Def: Mr L. Hite

JUDGMENT

(1) The defendant is charged with the offence careless driving contrary to section 40 (1) of the Traffic Act Cap 131. It is alleged that on 13/3/2011 the defendant drove a police land cruiser Reg. no. AB 7082 on Tandai Highway without due care and attention.

(2) The defendant is a police officer and was on her way to the Central Police Station with her colleague Mary Jane Maneforu to take a rape victim for medical examination by the doctors at the National Referral Hospital.

(3) The defendant drove out of Rove Police headquarters in the land cruiser AB7082 with Mary and overtook a police patrol land cruiser at out back shop and followed a red car driven by Jimmy Prasad to SIBC junction. She was intending to overtake the red car when it gave the right hand signal and she applied the brakes and could not avoid a collision. As a result of the collision both vehicles stopped. The defendant drove her land cruiser to the left hand side to the front of bus stop and the red car stopped in the middle of the road. The defendant called out to the police who arrived at the scene in the land cruiser which she had earlier overtaken and also to the defendant whom she knew and said that she had to go and attend to the rape victim at the Central Police Station and drove off.

(4) Subsequently the police took the driver of the red car Jimmy Prasad to the Central Police Station where he was subjected to a test conducted by the police to ascertain his sobriety. He was made to walk in a straight line and he was unable to do so which according to the police officer George Sahu that meant that he was drunk. Jimmy Prasad admitted that he was driving with an expired drivers licence and that the car was not registered and that it did not have a valid third party policy.

(5) Jimmy Prasad in evidence did not say anything about giving right hand signal. He said that when he arrived at the junction of SIBC he saw an oncoming vehicle and was about to turn when he felt a collision at the rear. His girl friend Shona Fafale who seated in the right side rear passenger seat said that he gave the right hand signal to turn into SIBC at the St John Bridge and her version was also supported by Michael Omakau who was at the Rove Park having slept there from 7.00p.m till midnight as he had been driving for the past 2 days. The exact distance between St John Bridge and the junction of SIBC is 67 metres as measured by police inspector Ian Vaevaso. Mary Maneforu the defendant's colleague travelling with her made 3 statements. In her last statement she said the red car gave very late signal. She also said in her earlier statement that there was no oncoming vehicle as stated by Jimmy Prasad.

(6) The defendant's version is that she was following the red car and was intending to overtake it and just then the driver put right hand side indicator on and she applied her brake and was unable to avoid the collision.

(7) The duty of a driver following another vehicle is stated in the case of Brown & Lynn v/s Western SMT Co – Ltd (1945) SC 31 where it is stated:

"the duty of a driver following another vehicle was as far as reasonably possible, to take up such a position and to drive in such a manner to deal with all traffic exigencies reasonably to be expected"

There is evidence that the red car was travelling at very slow speed but Jimmy Prasad said that he was travelling at 50 – 60 km/hr whilst the defendant was travelling between 40 – 50km/hr. She had positioned her vehicle to overtake him when all of a sudden he gave the right hand indicator to turn right so she could not overtake him and had to apply the brakes but it was too late to avoid the collision. This situation was created by Jimmy. Prasad as he gave a very late signal .It cannot be suggested that the defendant's driving felt below the standard of a reasonable, prudent, competent and experienced driver and I therefore find that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the defendant is acquitted of the charge of careless driving.

Shafi Khan
Principal Magistrate