Supreme Court of Mauritius, 15 janvier 2020, 2020 ROD 3 – POLICE V COLLET JOSEPH STENIO

POLICE V COLLET JOSEPH STENIO

2020 ROD 3

POLICE V COLLET JOSEPH STENIO

Cause Number :- 1159/2019

THE COURT OF RODRIGUES

In the matter of: –

POLICE

V

JOSEPH STENIO COLLET

JUDGMENT

Introduction 1. Accused stands charged with the offence of refusing to stop his vehicle when directed to do so by a police officer in breach of sections 123AD (1) (a) and 163 of the Road Traffic Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and was not assisted by Counsel at trial. The trial 2. For the prosecution, Police Constable Barthosow (“W4”) testified that on 13 February 2018, at 14.45 hours, he was on the main road of Malabar. More precisely on a one-way street coming from Mont Lubin and proceeding towards Mont Plaisir. W4 testified that he was performing a vehicle check dressed in police uniform. At the material time, he saw a motorcycle coming from the direction of Mont Lubin and was proceeding towards Malartic. W4 signalled the rider of the motorcycle by lifting his arm and directed the motorcyclist to stop. The rider put his left flasher and slowed the speed of his motorcycle but when the motorcyclist reached at the level of W4, he increased his speed and continued his way. W4 was able to record the registration plate of the red motorcycle which is 25RW.

3. For the accused, he stated from the dock that he did stop his motorcycle and it is the police officer who did not come towards him. Assessments. 4. I have assessed all the evidence on record. 5. In the present case, I have the version of the contravening officer whose testimony is as referred above. As regards to Accused, he cross examined the contravening officer by putting to him that he did stop in front of a shop. This was denied by W4 who replied that the rider did not stop because he could not verify the driving licence of the rider. 6. After having heard the version of Accused and of W4, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. This is being said because I find that W4 came forward as a witness of truth. The reason for such finding is because the version of W4 is credible and W4 adduced evidence without diffidence and without any indication of invention or exaggeration. Furthermore, W4 maintained his version in cross examination and he did not evade the question by Accused in cross examination and instead gave a logical and sensical answer. 8. As regards to Accused, his version is that he did stop his motorcycle but he stopped his motorcycle in front of a shop and not as indicated by W4. To that, I am of the view that the version of Accused cannot stand and this is being said because if it is true that Accused did stop and he saw W4 signalling him to do so, he should have approached W4 and asked him why he was signalled to stop. Furthermore, I find the reasoning of Accused totally absurd because if we follow that sort of reasoning then an individual who is driving a vehicle is signalled to stop by a police officer, it will be perfectly permissible for the driver to turn on a side road and it is the police officer who should come and meet him where he has stopped. Conclusion.

9. Therefore, for the reasons referred above, I find Accused guilty as charged.

Daniel Dangeot

Senior District Magistrate Delivered on 15 January 2020.