Supreme Court of Mauritius, 17 juin 2020, 2020 ROD 33 – POLICE V MERCURE JOASSE

POLICE V MERCURE JOASSE

2020 ROD 33

Cause No: 374/2020 THE COURT OF RODRIGUES

In the matter of:- POLICE

VERSUS

JOASSE MERCURE

JUDGMENT

Introduction 1. Accused, Joasse Mercure, stands charged with the offence of having rode his motorcycle without a rear mudguard in breach of regulation 4 and 125 of the Road Traffic (Construction and Use of Vehicles) Regulations 2010 (GN53/10) as added by Regulations 4 of the Road Traffic (Construction and Use of Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 (GN 170/2010). Accused pleaded not guilty and was not assisted by learned Counsel at trial. The trial 2. For the prosecution, Police Constable (“PC”) Potiron, the police officer who contravened Accused, testified that on 17 June 2019, at 10.20 hours, he was on the road of Mont Lubin and was doing a vehicle check of vehicles who were passing on that road. PC Potiron testified that at the material time, he stopped Accused who was riding a Yamaha motorcycle, registration mark: – 144RL. After the usual formalities, Accused was

informed that he was being contravened as there was no mud guard on the rear of the motorcycle.

3. From the dock, Accused stated that there is a mudguard on his motorcycle and same is part of the chassis and body of the motorcycle. 4. Mr. Jean Patrick Gaspard, a representative of J.Kalachand Co Ltd deponed to the fact that Accused purchased a motorcycle at J. Kalachand Co. Ltd and he produced an invoice (Doc.A) to that effect. He also produced a catalogue showing the model of the motorcycle which is a DT 125 and Mr. Gaspard testified that the mudguard on the motorcycle bought by Accused is incorporated with the chassis and that the motorcyclist will not be able to ride the motorcycle if the mudguard is removed because the mudguard is also a support for the seat on the motorcycle.

5. The case for the prosecution was then reopened and PC Potiron agreed that the motorcycle was as per the photographs (Doc.C) produced by Accused. PC Potiron testified that he may have made a mistake and this after he was shown the model of the motorcycle on the catalogue (Doc.B).

The Law

6. As regards to the law in relation to the present charge, it states that:- Every vehicle and its fitting shall be in such a condition as not to cause or likely to cause danger to any person on the vehicle or on the road.

Assessment of facts

7. I have assessed all the evidence on record. 8. In the present matter, for the prosecution, there is the evidence adduced by PC Potiron who admitted that he may have made a mistake regarding the contravention he issued to Accused and this after he was shown the model of the motorcycle rode by Accused on the material day. Furthermore, there is the evidence adduced by Mr. Gaspard that a motorcyclist will not be able to ride the motorcycle without the rear mudguard.

9. Hence, form the above, after the admission made by PC Potiron that he may have wrongly contravened Accused and relying on the unchallenged evidence adduced by Mr. Gaspard, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Accused was riding his motorcycle without a rear mudguard. Conclusion

10. Therefore, for the reasons referred above, the case is dismissed against Accused.

Daniel Dangeot Senior District Magistrate Delivered this 17 June 2020.