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

State v Ledua [2007] FJMC 15; Traffic Case No 495 of 2006 (4 June 2007)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT SUVA

Traffic Case No. 495 of 2006

STATE

V

ALIPATE LEDUA

Before Ajmal Gulab Khan Esq

Date of Hearing: 29/05/07
Date of Judgment: 04/06/07

Prosecution: DPO Epeli
Accused: Mr. K. Marawai

JUDGMENT

The defendant has been charged for Careless Driving under S 99 and S 114 of the Land Transport Act. Particulars are on 27th day of June 2006 on Ratu Mara Road defendant drove his taxi registration no. CT4994 without due care and attention.

The Prosecution alleges the complainant was parked at Princess Road coming into Waimanu Road at the lights. The lights turned green. Complainant saw the road clear and moved towards Waimanu Road. The defendant came from Waimanu turning right to Ratu Mara Road and collided into the left side of the complainant’s vehicle. The Complainant stopped his vehicle at point of impact but the defendant continued and stopped 11.4. Meters away.

The defence case is the lights were green and the road was busy. The defendant drove from Waimanu Road towards Ratu Mara turning right. There were many cars before him and he moved slowly. The lights turned amber and red when he was executing his turn. The complainant came from Princess Road and collided into his vehicle. He said if the complainant had waited despite his light, there would have been no collision. He submitted the complainant did not use commonsense.

I have considered whole of the evidence. I found the defendant’s version difficult to believe on following grounds:

1. He answered to the prosecution’s question that he had squeezed in due to the light change. He said ‘there was a gap between him and others so I fitted in the gap. He said lights changed from green to amber to red while he was moving from Waimanu Road towards Ratu Mara Road’. It’s obvious he came at the intersection at a very late stage and all cars had turned. He didn’t stop at lights but tried to move and catch up with other vehicles which had long gone. The lights turned but he didn’t stop.
   

He called it ‘filling the gap’. He also described how the lights changed from amber to red, so his attention was diverted to the lights as he drove at the intersection. Meanwhile the complainant had moved his car when his lights turned green.

2. It there was so much traffic in front of him and they were going slowly at the lights, it doesn’t explain how the defendant collided into the vehicle of the complainant and kept moving on to stop on Ratu Mara Road some 11 meters away from the point of impact without hitting any other vehicle. Obviously all the vehicles by then had turned and gone well away from the lights.
   
3. The defendant repeatedly in evidence and his learned counsel submitted the complainant should have waited despite his lights and used common sense to allow the defendant to go before moving his vehicle.
   

I deduce from evidence and the submissions that the defendant knew he should have waited at the intersection. He chose to follow the other cars which had gone on green lights and to fill the gap between the last car and himself. While he did this, he expected other drivers not to follow their lights but wait for him and allow him to make his right turn.

If the road was as busy as the defendant describes, then there would be no gaps and he should have waited at the intersection to allow others before him to turn safely into Ratu Mara Road before moving his vehicle into the intersection.

On the question of whether the complainant’s vehicle was stationary when hit. I consider the damage, police officers evidence who visited the scene and the complainant’s evidence prove credible. For the defendant to stop 11 meters after impact also shows he had collided into a standing car and kept going till it stopped at Ratu Mara Road.

The defendant also was unfamiliar with the roads and was only familiar with Kings Road. He also regurgitated a learnt story of lights being green, then amber and red. I do not accept his version of the facts as true on evidence before me.

I find in the circumstances the defendant to have fallen short of a prudent driver test when at a busy intersection. Instead of rushing to fill a gap when all others had gone; it would have been reasonable for him to wait as the lights were changing.

I am satisfied the Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The defendant is found guilty as charged.

Dated this on the 4th Day of June 2007.

Ajmal Gulab Khan
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE