Regina v Pentani [2017] SBMC 42; Criminal Case 259 of 2017 (7 September 2017)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT )
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS AT HONIARA )
(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 259 of 2017

REGINA
-v-
PITSON PENTANI

Date of Hearing: September 5, 2017
Date of Decision: September 7, 2017

Mr. L. Adifaka for the prosecution
Mr. M. Pitakaka for the accused

RULING ON NO CASE TO ANSWER

1. In this application, the Court is to consider whether or not there is sufficient evidence for the accused to put his defence/case as required under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘CPC’).
   
2. The trial is in relation to the allegation arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18^th January 2017 at the Koloale junction road at China Town in Honiara. As said by the defence, the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient or even tenuous to warrant the case to proceed to the defence case. Therefore, the Court should stop the trial and acquit the accused of the charge of careless driving contrary to section 40(1) of the Road Transport Act.
   
3. For this application, only the defence counsel had filed his written submission. Unfortunately, nothing from the prosecution despite the promise/undertaking to have its written submission filed on 1^st September 2017. The matter was adjourned for two occasions to allow the prosecution to file its written submission but nothing forthcoming. I have decided to deliver this ruling other than to continue to wait or to be dictated by the timing of the prosecution.
   
4. I start on the premise that to decide whether or not there is a case to answer under section 197 of the CPC, it will be based on the consideration of the prosecution’s evidence. So it is the evidence that will reveal or speak for itself for the determination of whether or not there is case to answer. The test is the sufficiency of the evidence and not merely on “some” evidence.
   
5. I must be reminded that it is not an avenue to consider matters regarding the inconsistencies of the prosecution’s evidence, the honesty and credibility of the witnesses. They are matters for consideration at the end of the trial as a whole. My duty is to simply rule on the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence when taken its case at its highest.
   
6. I am also reminded as instructed by then Muria CJ, in the case of R v Maenadi Watson, Smith Pitapio, Youngston Watson & Saro Norman^[1] the importance of the prosecution to adduce sufficient evidence for the allegation and not merely to adduce evidence to establish the elements of the charge.
   
7. So for the present case, is there sufficient evidence to proceed to the next stage of the trial?
   
8. In my view, 2 prosecution witnesses namely; Peter Philip Maeue (PW1) and Christina Luisa (PW2) are the relevant witnesses for me to decide this issue.
   
9. Peter Philip Maeue is a witness who involved in the motor vehicle accident. He stated that he was travelling at about 60km/h when he drove towards the Koloale junction after been to Quan Chee Refuelling Station. When he came closer to the junction, he could see a black caldina vehicle (‘accused vehicle’) started to move out from a shop on the opposite side of the road to Chungwa School. That vehicle moved towards the main road and signalled to turn left, meaning – towards the Lawson Tama direction. That was the time, he decelerated to allow the accused vehicle to move to his lane on the main road but instead, the accused made a swift contrary turn to the west bound lane. He made that turn from a distance of about 6 meters from him. Instantly, he decided to move to the opposite lane to avoid the accused but he collided with the accused vehicle. He was panic so he stepped on the accelerator and continued to drive until he stopped in front of one of the buildings on the right side of the road.
   
10. The evidence of Christina Luisa revealed that she was standing outside a vehicle in front of a shop located at the side of the western bound lane, a location opposite where the accused had started to drive in the main road. She was at that shop before the collision occurred. She remembered the traffic was empty when the two vehicles collided. She observed the pickup vehicle was travelling at a moderate speed before it collided with the black vehicle (accused vehicle). She explained her observation in cross examination that the accused car just drove in the main road without giving a chance to the pickup up truck and that was the reason the collision occurred.
    
11. That is essentially the case for the prosecution.
    
12. When I looked the evidence, it is my view that there is case to answer for the following reasons:
    
    1. There is evidence adduced by the prosecution that the accused drove into the main driveway from a distance of about 6 meters to the vehicle driven by Peter Philip Maeue;
       
    2. When the accused drove in, he had turned the left signal indicating to travel to the east side of the town;
       
    100. Instead of turning to the east side, he drove across the main road and made a contrary turn to the west bound lane;
         
    4. As a result, both vehicles collided; and
       
    5. There is evidence from Christina Luisa that according to her observation, it was the accused who drove straightway into the road without giving any chance for the pickup truck that resulted in the accident.
       
13. The aspects of the evidence outlined herein in my view constitute sufficient ground/evidence for this matter to proceed to the next stage. Therefore, I must allow this case to proceed to the defence case so that the accused will give his version of case or defence for final determination. This will ultimately decide who is at fault or to be blamed for the motor vehicle accident.
    
14. Order accordingly.
    

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE COURT

Augustine Aulanga – Principal Magistrate

---

^[1](Unrep. Criminal Case No. 16 of 1997)