Sablon v Public Prosecutor [1985] VULawRp 4; [1980-1994] Van LR 166 (17 May 1985)

[1980-1994] Van LR 166

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal (Appeal) Case No. 3 of 1985

IN THE MATTER OF:

JEAN JACQUES SABLON
Appellant

IN THE MATTER OF:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Respondent

Coram: Cooke C.J

JUDGMENT

[CRIMINAL LAW - motor traffic offence - consideration of "dangerous driving"]

In this case, the Appellant was charged with dangerous driving under section 13 of Joint Regulation No. 4 of 1962 which states:

"It is an offence to drive in a manner dangerous to the Public. In particular every driver must pay attention to his speed and drive his vehicle with care."

The evidence for the prosecution was that of a police constable who, as a result of a report of a traffic accident, went to the scene of the accident where he found paint and tyre marks by the grass. He drew a sketch plan which was not to scale but did give the approximate position of a pole set in a concrete base, which is close to the road when one drives around a steep bend on the right side of the road when one is proceeding towards the round-about on Rue Colardeau.

The Appellant made a cautioned statement which was admitted in evidence and in which he stated that he had been to a party in the BESA Club hosted by the Minister of Finance. That when the party ended, he left the BESA Club at about 9.45 p.m. in car G.851 and when he came round the curve at the Ministry of Transport (which is close to the said round-about at Rue Colardeau) he saw another car approaching from the opposite direction. That the car was travelling really fast and was too much on his side. That the lights of the other car were on high beam and the driver did not dip. That he tried to give way to the other vehicle but that he drove too much to his right and the right side of his vehicle, G.851, hit the lamp post. That he did try to avoid the lamp post but he was too near. He applied his brakes but came too near and the door hit the lamp post.

That was the prosecution's evidence which in my opinion was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of at least driving without due care.

The Appellant was affirmed and gave evidence substantially the same as his cautioned statement, except that he stated he changed to second gear. In evidence he said he saw the post near the road and when he gave way he collided with the post.

The learned Magistrate, in his judgment at paragraph 5, was of the opinion that as soon as the Appellant saw the undipped lights of the other vehicle, he should have warned the other driver of his impending approach by putting his lights on full beam and 'flicking' them to attempt to get the other driver to switch to low beam. That if the other driver took no notice so that the Appellant was still affected, it was incumbent on him, as he was in second gear, to stop on the side of the road. If the Appellant had done so, he certainly would not have collided with the pole. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate was correct in his conclusion on the facts before him. An Appellate Court will only interfere with the decision of the Court appealed from if the same was manifestly wrong. On the facts before him, I cannot say that the findings of the learned Magistrate were manifestly wrong. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal.

Dated at Vila this 17th day of May, 1985.

FREDERICK G. COOKE
CHIEF JUSTICE