Supreme Court of Mauritius, 15 janvier 2020, 2020 ROD 2 – POLICE V PERRINE JOWELSON

POLICE V PERRINE JOWELSON

2020 ROD 2

POLICE V PERRINE JOWELSON

Cause Number :- 1185/2019

THE COURT OF RODRIGUES

In the matter of: –

POLICE

V

JOWELSON PERRINE

JUDGMENT

Introduction 1. Accused stands charged under 3 counts. 2. Under the first count, Accused is charged with the offence of failing to stop the vehicle when directed to do so by a police officer in breach of section 123AD (1) (a) and 163 of the Road Traffic Act. 3. Under the second count, Accused is charged with the offence of carrying passenger in the open pickup area of double cab pickup / dual purpose in breach of regulation 69 (6) (a) and 125 of Government Notice 53 of 2010 of Road Traffic Act.

4. Under the third count, Accused stands charged with the offence of failing to fasten seat belt in breach of regulations 87(1) (a) (i) (b) and 125 of the Road Traffic (Construction and Use of Vehicles) coupled with section 123 AG, First Schedule (Section 20) Third Schedule ( Section 123 AG) of the Road Traffic Act as amended by section 10 of Act 7/2015 and 193 coupled with 4 th Schedule of Road Traffic Act. 5. Accused pleaded not guilty under all 3 counts and was not assisted by Counsel at trial. The prosecution case 6. On 18 June 2017, around 01.55 hours, Police Constable Perrine (“W4”) was on Autonomie Road at Mont Lubin, opposite to Feu Rouge Shop. He was dressed in police uniform and was wearing fluorescent gloves and was also holding a fluorescent light baton. W4 testified that he was standing on the right side of the road when facing the old market of Mont Lubin and was also standing in a position where he could be seen by any driver. At the material time, he saw a 2×4 blue wheel drive vehicle of registration mark:- 82RDC14 which was coming from Mont Limon and was proceeding towards Malabar. When the vehicle reached a distance of 10 metres from him, W4 raised his hand and signalled the driver to stop and he did so with the aid of the baton light. W4 testified that he also indicated the driver where he had to stop. When the driver came close to W4, the driver accelerated the vehicle and passed beside W4. W4 was able to see the driver and who he identified him as Accused in the present case. W4 testified that there was only that vehicle at the material time and the place was well lighted. W4 also testified that the seatbelt of Accused was not fastened and there were also 3 persons who were in the rear truck of the vehicle. He also testified that there was no letter “L” neither at the front and nor at the rear of the vehicle. The case for the defence 7. For the defence, Accused stated from the dock that he has two defence witness with him at the material time and that he was driving vehicle registration mark:- 83RDC14. He went on to say that that he went to collect the wife of one Felicite at the material time who was working at a party which was being held after the football ground of Grande Montagne. Accused further stated that they all went to a place located at opposite to a junction down a track road at Malabar and this was to collect a paper and they went to his place at Roseaux.

8. The first witness called by Accused was Jean Eric Felicite. He testified that he was with Accused at the material time but he did not see any police officer on the road.

Assessment of facts. 9. I have assessed all the evidence on record. 10. In the present matter, the case for the prosecution rests on the evidence of W4. He gave his version of events leading him to positively identifying Accused who was driving the vehicle registration mark:- 82 RDC 14 without fastening his seatbelt and was carrying 3 persons in the open pickup area of the vehicle. After having heard his version, I see no reason as to why I should doubt or disbelieve his version. This is being said because W4 was well confident when he was testifying and there was no indication of exaggerating, invention or evasiveness. 11. As regards to Accused, he denied of having been signalled by any police officer and his version is that there was no police officer on the road at the material time. He gave his version of events of what he did at the material time and same has been referred above. Accused called one of the passenger who was with him at the material time and he also gave his version of events. However, the version of Accused and his defence witness are indeed different. First, Accused stated that he went with Felicite to collect the wife of Felicite who was at a party compared to Felicite who stated in cross examination that he was together with Accused at the party. Felicite however changed his version when the version of Accused was put to him and he stated that he left the party with Accused at some point during the party and then went back to collect his wife. The second inconsistency is that Accused stated that he went to collect a paper at Malabar compared to Felicite who testified that they indeed went to Malabar but it was for eating noodles and that Accused stayed in the vehicle at all material times. The third inconsistency is that Accused stated that they went to his place at Roseaux after having been to Malabar compared to Felicite who testified that Accused dropped them at their place which is found near to Countour Oblas. 12. Having taken the version of Accused and the answers given by Felicite in cross examination, I am of the view that both Accused and Felicite came forward with a version which is untenable. This is being said because the version put by Accused is completely different with

the version of Felicite and hence, I find that the version put forward by Accused is unreliable and I find that it has failed to cast doubt in the prosecution case. 13. Hence, in the light of the above, I find for the prosecution and I find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and this is relying on the evidence adduced by W4 who has been found to be a witness of truth. Conclusion 14. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, I find Accused guilty as charged.

Daniel Dangeot Senior District Magistrate Delivered on 15 January 2020.