Section 12 of the Road Traff (Control) Act [CAP.29] reads:
“A person who causes theh
of another person bson by driving a motor vehicle on the road recklessly shall be
guilty of
an offence…”
For the defendant, to be found
guilty as charged under Section 12 of the Road Traffic (Control) Act
[CAP.29], the prosecution must prove each and all elements of the offence of
causing death by reckless driving, beyond
reasonable doubt.
<
1. &nbbsp;&&nsp;;&nsp; &nsp; &nnbp;& &n Than>The defe defendant is the person
2. &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;&nsp; p;
s Who cauo causes the death
3pt">3. &nnbsp;;&nspp;&nsp; &nsp; &&nbp;; &nnsp;&
Ofan>Of another person
4. &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;&nsp;
By dg
5. ;&nbssp; &nsp; &nsp; p; &nnsp;&&nsp; &nbp;
Ar otoicle
6. &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;&nsp;
7. ;&nbssp; &nsp; &nsp; p; &nnsp;&&nsp; &nbp;
Rsskle/span>
&nb"> span>
On 17 April 2002 the defendant
pleaded nolty to the offence of causicausing death by reckless driving,
contrary to Section
12 of the Road Traffic (Control) Act [CAP.29].
The thrust of the prosecution
is that: on 5 September 2000, the defendant drove a white double cabin Hilux,
which was
a new vehicle, at a speed of 65-70 KMPH. This is too fast. The
defendant allowed to take at the cart of the truck, two (2)
rubbish bins and
a mattress of 30 cm thick longer than the cart of the vehicle. The
prosecution alleged that the driving,
the conduct and the circumstances at
the time amounted to reckless on the part of the defendant, as the driver of
the
truck in which the victim Fabrice Dinh was fallen and died.
lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
The prosecution called 2
witnesses: a Vanuatu Mobile Force (VMF) Officer, Cpl Michel Ala, and Koko
Willie.
The details of the evidence are
recorded in the file.
At the end of the prosecution
case, counsel for the defendant, mano case submission. The coue court ruled
that there is
a case for the defendant to answer and called upon the
defendant for her defence.
The defendant exercises her
legal right under Section 88 e Criminal Procedure Code tode to remain silent
and did not call any evidence to support her defence. By doing so, the
defendant, Esline Tebeim
should not be criticised for having not done so.
The que to be decided in
the end by me, as the Judge of facts is whether, on the whole of thof the
evidence before me,
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the
defendant is guilty to the offence as charged under Section 12 of the Road
Traffic (Control) Act [CAP.29].
The evidence which are not
challenged, estaed that on 5 September 2000 2000, at the time of the
accident, the defendant
was the person who drove the white double cabin
Toyota Hilux registration No.2611 on Teouma road. The vehicle was involved
in an accident as a result of which Fabrice Dihn, a passenger of the truck,
who was lying down on the mattress felt off
the truck with the mattress and
was seriously injured and died on the same day. The defendant admitted she
drove at a
speed of 65-70 KMPH.
I am satisfied that elements 1,
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the offence as charged under Section 12 of the Road
Traffic (Control) Act [CAP.29] are proved on the required criminal standard.
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
The only element in issue is
that of “reckless driving”.
The Road TrafControl) Act
[CAP.29] does not provide any definitionition as to the meaning of “reckless
driving”.
By perusing the language of
Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Road Traffic (Control) Act [CAP.29], that
reckless is obviously something more serious than careless driving. Reckless
involves doing something
which a driver knows involves a risk. Because a
driver drives too fast – if that is what an ordinary person think of getting
out of control. Once a driver gets out of control in a vehicle of this size
anything might happen. Under Section13 of
the Road Traffic (Control) Act you
may be guilty of reckless driving without a collision. You may be guilty of
reckless driving if you are reckless
as to your own safety as well as anyone
else’s.
Is case, the defendant
loahe truck with 2 rh 2 rubbish bins and a thick mattresstress which is longer
than the cart of
the vehicle. The victim is a young boy of 13 years of age.
The defendant knew this. Witness Ala saw the victim lying on the
mattress
when he gave way to the vehicle on Teouma road.
Under cross-exaion, Michel
Ala was asked:
“You no save wapeed
hemi run long heng hem?”
Ala answered:
<
“Mi no save talem but weight
blong truck wetem small boy ia mo weight blong long hem behind long truck ia mo
long time
ia win i blow long matress behind hemi representem at least 13 to
15 kilo long behind long truck ia…”
Q. &nbssp; &nbssp; &nbp; &nbs;
“ayu sme you gyou go, you look boy ia I sleep long road?
>
R. &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;&nsp; p;
s Yes … ms … mi no save talem how boy ia fall down but mi look save small
boy ia mo mi look matress we mi look truck fall.”
I am satisfied beyond
reasonable doubt that this amounted to reckless driving on the part of the
defendant. The reckless
element is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Verdict
I find the defendant, Esline
Tebeim, guilty of the offef causing death by recklesskless driving contrary
to Section 12
of the Road Traffic (Control) Act [CAP.29].
p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
DATED at PORT-VILA, this 6th
DAY of MAY, 2002
BY THE COURT
Vincent LUNABEK
Chief Justice
