IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI
AT TAVEUNI
 
Traffic Case : - 139/2011
 
STATE

V

MOHOMMED ROMIN FARMAN

For the Prosecution : Ms.Ello (ODPP) 
The Accused : In person 
Date of Ruling : 16th of March 2016 

RULING ON NO CASE TO ANSWER

1.	The accused is charged with one count of Careless Driving contrary to sections 99(1) and 114 of the Land Transport Act No 35 of 1998. 

2.	The Prosecution closed the case after calling 03 witnesses and the defence made ‘no case submission ‘pursuant to section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Decree. 

3.	Both parties have filed their submissions which I have carefully perused in addition to the evidence presented in this case. 

4.	The accused submitted that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt because there is no direct evidence to show he was driving in a careless manner and therefore he should be acquitted. 

5.	Even though the accused misconceived his submission I find he can be excused considering that he is unrepresented and not well versed with law. 

6.	The prosecution at this stage does not have to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and only has to provide evidence to show there is a prima facie case only. Further even though there is no direct evidence the Court can consider circumstantial evidence to find a case. 

7.	The applicable test in Magistrate Courts in a ‘no case submission’ was properly discussed in State V Aiyaz [2009] FJHC 186 where his Lordship Justice Goundar said :

“ The test for no case to answer in the Magistrates’ Court under section 210 is adopted from the Practice Direction, issued by the Queen’s Bench Division in England and reported in [1962] 1 All E.R 448 (Moiden v R (1976) 27 FLR 206). There are two limbs to the test under section 210:

 [i] Whether there is no evidence to prove an essential element of the charged offence;

 [ii] Whether the prosecution evidence has been so discredited or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could convict.

 An accused can rely on either limb of the test under section 210 to make an application for no case to answer in the Magistrates' Court." 

8.	The accused is charged with Careless Driving contrary to section 99(1) and 114 of the Land Transport Act and the elements of this offence are:

a.	The Accused;

b.	Drove a motor vehicle on a public street;

c.	Without due care and attention.

9.	In the caution interview the accused admitted that he was traveling at 60-70kmph when approaching a sharp bend. Even though he further explained that a vehicle from behind bumped him which caused this accident investigations failed to find any vehicle alleged to involve in this incident. 

10.	Having considered the above evidence I find there is a case against the accused and dismiss this application. 

Shageeth Somaratne
Resident Magistrate