IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Matagi [2024] WSDC 6 (9 October 2024)

Case name: 	Police v Matagi	
		
Citation: 	[2024] WSDC 6	
		
Decision date: 	9 October 2024	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Informant) v GODSPROMISE MATAGI (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 	10-11 February 2024	
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	District Court – CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	District Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Judge Atoa-Saaga	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	I hereby find the Defendant guilty of four counts of negligent driving causing injury	
		
Representation: 	Corporal Faamanatu for Prosecution
Mr. Alex Su’a for Defendant	
		
Catchwords: 	Negligent driving causing injury – dangerous driving – careless driving - 	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Road Traffic Ordinance 1960, ss. 38; 39(1); 39A (1)(2)(a); 72(A).	
		
Cases cited:	Police v Nielsen (2014) WSSC 45
Police v Fanueli (1993) WSSC 3
R v Cottle [1958] NZLR 999 (CA).	
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

A N D:

GOD’SPROMISE MATAGI of Vaiusu

Defendant

Representation:		Prosecution represented by Corporal Faamanatu
Defendant Represented by 	Mr. Alex Sua
Hearing Date:			10th-11th April 2024
Hearing of Submissions:	4th June 2024
Decision: 			9th October 2024

DECISION
1. 	The Defendant has been charged with the following charges:
(a) 	4 counts of negligent driving causing injury pursuant to Section 39A (1)(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Ordinance 1960. The victims are Tualogo Feluiai, Taliilagi Loto, Sailiomanu Loto aka Vaifanua Feliuai. (footnote the provision)	
(b) 	One Count of Dangerous Driving under Section 39(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance 1960.
(c) 	One count of careless driving pursuant to Section 38 and 72A(2) of the Road Traffic Ordinance 1960.
2. 	Prosecution called 7 witnesses. The Defendant elected to give evidence. Defendant also called two witnesses including his father. 
3. 	Prosecution bears the burden of proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
EVIDENCE
Prosecution’s Evidence
4. 	Tualogo Feliuai, Vaifanua Feliai and Niuava Feliuai were in Salelologa to pick up a pension for Vaifanua’s brother. It was while they were driving back that Niuava and Vaifanua saw the Dyna driving on the same lane that they were driving. Niuava tried to drive off the lane but it was too late, they were involved in a collision. Tualogo was at the back of the vehicle with a five year old child. He heard a loud noise and woke up outside the vehicle. Blood was oozing out of his head.
5. 	Tuvao Iona and Fialelei Tonise were with the Defendant and Peniamina Malu. They are all part of the Youth For Christ Ministry. They were at Sagone ministering to the Savaii Sisifo College and were driving back to Salelologa and were dozing at the back of the Dyna Truck when they heard a loud noise. When they gained consciousness, they were lying outside the truck. Tuvao cannot recall when he fell off the truck. Fialelei discovered blood from a cut on his head. On cross examination, both Tuvao and Fialelei testified that no alcohol was consumed by any of them including the Defendant.
Defendant’s Evidence
6. 	The Defendant, Peniamina Malu, Fialelei and Tuvao were in Savaii to conduct programs for Youth For Christ. On this day, they left Salelologa at 4am for Sagone. Peniamina led the program and when the program was finished at 10am, they loaded their musical equipment onto the Dyna Truck and drove to Salelologa. They came across at a road block at Palauli before they continued onto Salelologa. God’spromise remembered the journey up to this point while they were driving at Salelologa. He cannot remember anything after that.
7. 	Peniamina was on his phone texting when he felt a loud noise resulting in his phone falling off. He saw God’s promise in a horror stricken stage paralyzed and staring at the ceiling. He became cognizant of their surroundings in that the vehicle was sliding towards the electric pole. He grabbed the wheel and steered the vehicle away from the electric pole and towards a sandpile as he saw the dashboard being pushed against them. The sandpile and fence stopped the vehicle. He hit Godspromise on his side to try and revive before he exited the vehicle. 
DISCUSSIONS
8. 	Prosecution must prove the elements of the offences for which the Defendant has been charged beyond reasonable doubt. 
9. 	The elements of the negligent driving causing injury are:
(i) 	That the driver drove a vehicle negligently
(ii) 	That the bodily injury was caused to any person and
(iii) 	That there was a causal link between the Defendant’s driving and the injury.
10. 	The Defendant has also been charged with dangerous driving and careless driving as alternative charges.
11. 	The Defendant has raised the Defence of Automatism and relies on the evidence of Dr Jona Falefau corroborated by Peniamina Malu and the Defendant. 
12. 	In R v Cottle [1958] NZLR 999 (CA) “Automatism is defined as conduct of which the doer is not conscious-in short doing something without knowledge of it and without memory afterwards of doing having done it-a temporary eclipse of consciousness that nevertheless, leaves the person so affected able to exercise bodily movements. In such a case, the action is one which the mind in its normal functioning does not control. This may be due to some “disease of mind” or it may not be, it may happen with a perfectly healthy mind (e.g. in somnambulism which be unaccompanied by any abnormality of mind) or it may occur where the mind is temporarily affected as the result of a blow, or by the influence of drug or other intoxication. It may on the other hand be caused by an abnormal condition of the mind capable of being designated as a mental disease.”
13. 	Dr Jone H B Palefau was called as a Prosecution witness. He is the Acting Senior Medical Doctor and gave evidence of the injuries sustained by the victims. He was however questioned on the report of another doctor’s finding of a cyst discovered on the left side of the Defendant’s head on the 15th June 2023. When questioned as to whether the cyst could cause a seizure, he testified that it depends where it is and its size. He expressed an opinion if the cyst was big enough, it may cause seizures but he was concerned that the cyst was only discovered after 6 months of the accident. 
14. 	The accident occurred on 8th September 2022. The cyst was discovered on 15th June 2023 which is 9 months from the time of the accident so there is no confirmation whether it existed at the time of the accident or caused by the accident. Dr Palefau is also not a neurologist and was hesitant to draw a conclusion as to what was presented to him on the stand. He was also not able to provide conclusive evidence that meningitis contracted at a young age of 8 months caused the defendant to have a seizure at the time of the accident.
15. 	According to the evidence of the Defendant, he lost consciousness at the time of the accident. Prior to that, he remembered everything from when they left Sagone, the roadblock at Palauli and driving from Salelologa. Peniamina was occupied with his phone when the collision happened and he described the actions of the Defendant as being in a trance only after the collision. The Defendant’s reaction could have been caused by the collision. Prior to the collision, he vouched that the Defendant was acting normally. 
16. 	The two members of the YFC Ministry accompanying them at the back of the truck were dozing off as they have been on their mission since 4 am and the mission in Savaii has been for a week. So there is a presumption that they were all tired and the Defendant was also tired at the time he was driving. 
17. 	In Police v Nielsen (2014) WSSC 45, psychiatric reports were provided to the Court to assist in the determination of whether automatism was a defence. In Police v Fanueli (1993) WSSC 3, both a medical practitioner and a psychiatrist gave evidence on the state of the Defendant. A medical report provided by a medical practitioner who examined the Defendant at the time of the accident would have corroborated the evidence of the Defendant and Peniamina Malu and provide an evidential foundation for a defence of automatism to be laid. 
18. 	I do not find it that an evidential foundation has been laid by the Defendant through the responses of the medical practitioner who was in Court for the sole purpose of establishing whether there were bodily injuries sustained by the victims. The responses from this medical practitioner does not corroborate the evidence of the Defendant and Peniamina Malu as he did not examine the Defendant therefore could not substantiate the existence of the cyst and its effects. The report prepared for the Defendant was by a different doctor who also could not draw a conclusion from the examination conducted on the 15th June 2023 and his report also was subject to the Defendant undergoing an EEG (Electroencephalogram) which is an examination that is not available locally.
19. 	After finding that there is insufficient evidence to provide a foundation for automatism, I find the Defendant guilty of four counts of negligent driving causing injury. As I have found the Defendant guilty of four counts of negligent driving causing injury, I dismiss the charges of dangerous driving and careless driving.
CONCLUSION
20. 	I hereby find the Defendant guilty of four counts of negligent causing injury.

JUDGE ATOA SAAGA