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

State v Tikosuva [2010] FJMC 119; Traffic Case 1935 of 2009 (10 September 2010)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT LAUTOKA

Traffic Case No 1935/09

BETWEEN

THE STATE

AND

FILIMONE TIKOSUVA

JUDGEMENT

1. The accused is charged in this case for illegal stopping. The statement of offence and the particulars of offence are as follows;
   

Statement of offence

Illegal stopping contrary to regulation 20(1)(a) and 87 of Land Transport (Traffic) Regulations 2000.

Particulars of offence

Filimone Tikosuva on the 03/09/09 at Lautoka in the Western Division being the driver of taxi reg No LT 5069 at Hospital Roundabout stopped where restricted.

2. The accused is booked on the 03rd September 2009 and was charged on the 24th November 2009. The case was taken up for hearing on the 01st June 2010. The prosecution was conducted by a Police Prosecutor and the accused was unrepresented. Two witnesses were called by the prosecution and after the prosecution case the court held that the prosecution has made out a case for the accused to reply. The accused gave evidence and no other witnesses were called.
   
3. Section 20 (1)(a) reads as follows;
   

"No person may unless approved by the authority leave a vehicle unattended in a position as to obstruct the traffic or cause unreasonable inconvenience to a person."

4. Thus it is clear that the prosecution has to prove among other things, that the vehicle was left unattended.
   
5. However when the evidence of the prosecution is considered it is clearly discernible that the vehicle was not left unattended by the accused. The both prosecution witnesses said that the accused was booked when he stopped the taxi in a bus bay obstructing other vehicles. There was no evidence whatsoever, to suggest that the accused left the car unattended at the bus bay.
   
6. In fact the prosecution should have charged the accused with a different offence. But according to Section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Decree the charge can be amended only before the close of the prosecution case.
   
7. In the circumstances I do not think that there is a necessity to go in to the merits of the case any further.
   
8. I acquit the accused from the offence he is charged with.
   

28 days to appeal.

Rangajeeva Wimalasena
Resident Magistrate

Lautoka
10.09.2010