Police v.

Jeannot

2016 LPW 261

Cause Number: - 3434/14

IN THE DISTRICT OF LOWER PLAINES WILHEMS
In the matter of: POLICE
v.
JEAN FLORENT JOSEPH JEANNOT
JUDGMENT

Accused stands charged with the offence of unlawfully driving a motor vehicle on a road
without due care and attention in breach of section 123 C (1) (a), (3) and 52 of the Road
Traffic Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and was partly represented by counsel.

It is the case for the prosecution that on 04 May 2013 at 07 20 hrs, the declarant was driving
a dark grey BMW car bearing registration number AG 1123 along Rosiers Avenue
proceeding towards Sodnac, on the left hand side of the road, at a speed of 25 km/hr, when
he met with an accident. The declarant explained that upon approaching the junction of
Rosiers and Trianon II Avenues, he noticed a light grey car, driven by the accused, whom he
identified in court. The accused was motoring at great speed along Trianon II Avenue and
was proceeding towards Rosiers Avenue. The car failed to stop at the junction of the roads
and emerged onto Rosiers Avenue. The declarant swerved to avoid a collision, to no avail.
The front part of the vehicle of accused knocked the front nearside of the vehicle of the
declarant. Both vehicles were damaged.

The accused did not adduce any evidence. His version as per his unsworn statement given
under caution to the police is that he had emerged slightly onto Rosiers Avenue, when he
felt a violent impact. He saw that the nearside of the vehicle of declarant had knocked
against the front part of his vehicle.

Learned counsel assisting the prosecution submitted that the prosecution has proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as Trianon II Avenue is a less important road and
all traffic had to give way to road users motoring along Rosiers Avenue. She stated that it
was not disputed that the road was under repairs and that there was no markings on the
road to indicate a stop line but that there was visible to all users the words STOP written on
the road, so that it is clear that they should stop to give way. She further stated that the
damages support the case for the prosecution.

It is not disputed that the collision occurred whilst the accused was in the process of
emerging from a less important road onto a main road. It is however the unsworn version of
the accused that firstly, the road was under repairs, secondly, that there was a car, whose
registration number he did not know, which had parked near the junction, thirdly that there
were no road markings and finally that there shrubs obstructing his view.

I have taken into consideration the fact that the road was under repairs and that there was
no visible stop line on Trianon II Avenue, at its junction with Rosiers Avenue. I have also
borne in mind the fact that the words STOP written on the road, located a 12 m 30 cms
from the junction with Rosiers Avenue as per Doc D, appeared faded in the photographs
produced in court and that in his unsworn statement, the accused mentioned the presence of
a parked car close to the junction. I however note from Document D, that there was also a
STOP sign post located on the left hand side of Trianon II Avenue, at a distance of 22 m 40
cms from the junction with Rosiers Avenue. This has remained unchallenged in the cross
examination of PS Ramracheea. I am therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused should have seen either one or both indication on the road and that he should have
known that he was motoring on a less important road, about to emerge onto a main road and
had to stop before emerging onto Rosiers Avenue.

Now, in the rough sketch produced in court (Doc D refers), the accused indicated Point D as
the point of impact. This shows that the accused had emerged over a distance of 2 m 10
cms onto Rosiers Avenue, which itself is of a total width of 6 m. Even if there were shrubs by
the edge of the road which impeded the view of the accused, he should as a careful and
prudent driver have emerged gradually onto the main road and ascertained at all times that
the road was clear before proceeding ahead. In failing to do so and emerging a considerable

distance onto the main road, the accused was imprudent. This, irrespective of the speed at
which the declarant was driving his vehicle inasmuch as the speed at which the declarant
was proceeding does not exonerate the accused of his failure to take all the reasonable
steps a prudent driver should have taken in the same circumstances.

For all the above reasons, I find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt and I find the accused guilty as charged.

S Chui
[Judgment delivered by S Chui (Mrs) Senior District Magistrate]
[Judgment delivered on 16 December 2016]