Regina v Taia [2016] SBMC 9; Criminal Case 637 of 2014 (8 April 2016)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATES COURT )
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS AT HONIARA )
(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 637 of 2014

REGINA -v- ELVIS TAIA

Crown: Mr. M. Reani of Police Prosecutions (PPO)
Defence: Mr. W. Faga of Solomon Telecom Co. Ltd
Hearing: March 9, and 22, 2016
Closing submissions: April 1, 2016
Judgement: April 8, 2016

JUDGMENT

1. The defendant Mr. Elvis Taia pleaded not guilty to the charge of careless driving contrary to section 40(1) of the Road Transport Act. The prosecution alleges that on 23^rd of January 2013, the defendant drove a yellow Toyota Hilux registration number A-7152 along Mangautu main road and without due care and attention applied his brakes without releasing it and as a result it slid on the loose gravel and it capsized with minor damages.
   
2. The defendant denied this and put the prosecution to the test of proving its case to the required standard and that is, to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. That burden remains with the prosecution throughout the trial. The defence on the other hand does not have any burden to proof its case.
   
3. If the prosecution does not satisfy me of each of the elements of the offence of careless driving to that high standard and any reasonable doubt remains as to his guilt, the defendant is to be given the benefit of that doubt and is to be acquitted. This is his legal right.
   
4. Three witnesses were called and seven exhibits^[1] were tendered for this trial. Deduced from the evidence adduced in Court, the main issue for me to decide is; whether or not the defendant was careless with his driving at the material time of the incident namely, the vehicle accident at Mangautu main road.
   
5. To answer this issue,the Court will considerthe evidence of Lancelot Barakesa (PW3) and the police statement ofEarlson Ben (P4). These are the two witnesses who travelled with the defendant in the vehicle during the time the accident occurred. In my view, the prosecution’s case will stand or fall on the assessment of their respective evidence before the Court.
   
6. The evidence of Mr. Barakesarevealed that prior to the accidenthe was sitting with the driver in front of the vehicle when they travelled towards the area called Mangautu. He estimated that they were travelling between 40-60km/h along the main driveway. As they approached the end of the tar sealed road, he knew the driver stepped on the brake but due to the loose gravel, the vehicle slid to its left. He observed the driver was controlling the steering wheelof that vehicle as good as he could to try and avoid any accident but the vehicle continued to swerve to the left side of the road. When it reached the left end of the road, it hit a heap of gravel causing the vehicle to overturn. He knew the driver was doing the right thing so he did not say anything to him during the course of trying to control the vehicle.
   
7. The evidence in the police statement of Earlson Ben (P4) stated the defendant was driving very fast. When they approached the end of the tar sealed, he recalled the driver tried to slow down but slid along the loose gravel resulting in the accident. There was no further explanation about the erratic movement of the vehicle except to say that it was speeding at that time. I take into account his statement was tendered by consent due to his unavailability.
   
8. Based on their respective evidence, I find the following to be the facts been proved in the trial:
   
   • (i) Prior to the accident, the defendant did not drive erratically along the tar sealed road when approaching Mangautu. This finding was based on the fact that no evidence was produced to the Court to establish whether he was driving erratically before the accident.
     
   • (ii) The evidence of Barakesarevealed that the driver in fact slowed down before the vehicle slid. This was corroborated by the defendant’s evidence in Court. This was further corroborated by Ben’s evidence in the tendered statement that an attempt was made by the defendant to slow down the vehicle. Hence, I accepted that the defendant had decelerated the vehicle immediately before he drove on the loose gravel and was travelling at a reasonable speed.
     
   • (iii) The vehicle slid to its left when it travelled on the loose gravel as showed in P5.
     
   • (iv) The driver as observed by Barakesawas trying his best to control the vehicle to avoid an accident. Hence, the defendant was acting in his capacity as a prudent driver trying to control the vehicle to avoid any accident when confronting that danger or emergency situation.
     
   • (v) The accident as the evidence established was not attributed to the careless driving of the defendant but an act which was unavoidable given the size and movement of that vehicle on that loose gravel.
     
9. The assessment on the respective evidence given by Barakesaand Benat their highest clearly are insufficient to establish the required standard whether the defendant was driving carelessly at the material time of the incident. Barakesa’s evidence is consistent with the defendant’s version that he was trying his best to control that vehicle when it slid on the loose gravel. Even the statement of Ben on its face value did not establish sufficiently to the required standard the careless driving of the defendant.
   
10. The accident in my viewcannot be said to be the fault of the defendant but occurred only because it was unavoidable given the danger situation confronted by the defendant at that material time. That situation even a prudent and competent driver would not have avoided it given the size of the vehicle, its speed and the condition of the road at that time. In Simpson v Peat,^[2]Lord Goddard CJ stated:
    

“Suppose a driver is confronted with a sudden emergency although no fault of his own; in an endeavour to avert a collision he swerves to his right – it is shown that had he swerved to the left the accident would not have happened; that is being wise after the event and, if the driver was in fact exercising the degree of care and attention which a reasonably prudent driver would exercise, he ought not be convicted, even though another and perhaps more highly skilled driver would have acted differently”^[3]

11. Having reached this conclusion, I am not satisfied that the Crown has proved its case beyond reasonable in relation to the charge of careless driving against Elvis Taia and accordingly, I must acquit him forthwith of the charge.
    
12. Aggrieved party may appeal this judgement within 14 days as of the date of this judgement.
    

ORDER OF THE COURT:

(A) Acquit Elvis Taia of one count of careless driving contrary to section 40 (1) of the Road Transport Act.

....................................................................................
THE COURT
(Augustine Aulanga – PM)

---

^[1] Pre-trial Conference Checklist (P1), List of Witnesses to Call and List of Statements & Exhibits to Tender by Consent (P2), Agreed Facts (P3), Police Statement of Earlson Ben (P4), Sketch Plan of the Crime Scene at Mangautu Main Road (P5), Vehicle Inspection Report (P6) and Record of Interview of Elvis Taia taken on 2^nd of June 2014
^[2][1952] 2 QB 24
^[3] Page 27-28 of the judgement