Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

Katia v State [2013] FJHC 31; HAA16.2012 (30 January 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No: HAA16 of 2012

BEFORE : THE HON. JUSTICE PAUL MADIGAN

BETWEEN:

JOJI KATIA
Appellant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Counsel : Mr. A. Sen for Appellant
Ms M. Fong for the State

Date of Hearing : 28 November 2012
Date of Judgment : 30 January 2013

JUDGMENT

[1] On the 6th July 2012 in the Magistrate's Court at Labasa the appellant was convicted after trial of a traffic offence and sentenced that day to a fine of $150.

[2] The offence he was convicted of reads as follows:

Statement of Offence

FAILURE TO REPORT ACCIDENT: contrary to section 63(2)(a) of the Land Transport (Traffic) Regulations 2000.

Particulars of Offence

Joji Katia, on the 8th April 2009 at Labasa in the Northern Division being a driver of a motor vehicle registration no. GN266 which was involved in accident in public street namely Nacaya Subdivision Road failed to report the particulars and circumstances of the accident within 24 hours after the accident to the nearest Police Station namely Labasa Police Station.

[3] The appellant appeals conviction only on the basis that the statement of offence and particulars disclose no offence.

[4] It is helpful and relevant to quote the whole of Regulation 63. It reads:

63(1) "If a motor vehicle is involved in a motor accident on a public street and this results in death or injury to a person, or damage to another vehicle, or a property of another person or animal, the driver of the vehicle must stop and give any necessary assistance and his or her name and address, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle, its registration number and the name of the insurance company responsible for the third party insurance to any person with an interest in any vehicle, property or animal involved in the accident and present at the time of the accident or immediately after the accident."

63(2) "If a motor vehicle accident occurs on a public street, -

(a) causing damage to any vehicle, animal, or property, and the driver of the motor vehicle does not give his name and address in the manner prescribed by sub-regulation (1); or

(b) causing injury or death to a person or animal;

the driver of the motor vehicle must report the particulars and the circumstance of the driver of the accident at a police station or to a police officer as soon as practicable and in any case within 24 hours after the accident."

[5] Counsel for the appellant argues that 63(2)(a) does not impose a requirement to report the accident to the police because by reading subsection (1) into it, a report only has to be made if there is damage or injury to another vehicle, or injury to a person or damage to property or an animal. This accident only involving the driver's own vehicle and none other then the requirement to report, he submits, is obviated.

[6] Mr. Sen's argument is at first blush attractive because of the reference to subsection (1) in the words of subsection (2) however on closer examination the submission is misconstrued. When read together both subsections require a report to be made to the police whether other property is damaged or not.

[7] To simplify the required procedure the process to be taken is this:

1. if another vehicle, person or animal is damaged or hurt then details of the driver and his insurer must be given to the party damaged;
   
2. if those details are not given and if there is damage to any vehicle (which must include one's own) then a report must be made to the Police.
   

[8] In this case therefore the driver did damage to his own vehicle and not to anyone else, any other animal or any other vehicle. There was therefore no need to give his particulars to anybody. He not having given particulars then subsection (2) comes into play in which he having damaged a vehicle (his own) he must report it to the Police.

[9] The charge as laid discloses a distinct offence as properly found by the Magistrate. She dealt with each element of the offence and quite properly found the appellant guilty as charged.

[10] The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Paul K. Madigan
JUDGE

At Labasa
30 January 2013