Supreme Court of Mauritius, 24 juin 2020, 2020 ROD 36 – POLICE V FLORE MICHEL JOSEPH

POLICE V FLORE MICHEL JOSEPH

2020 ROD 36

Cause Number: 321/2020

THE COURT OF RODRIGUES

In the matter of:-

POLICE

VS

JOSEPH MICHEL FLORE

Judgment

Introduction. 1. Accused stands charged under two counts. 2. Under the first count, Accused stands charged with the offence of overtaking or passing a vehicle which has stopped at a pedestrian crossing in breach of regulation 4 and 10 of Government Notice 144 of 2002 and section 190 (1) (3) of the Road Traffic Act coupled with section 123 AG, First Schedule and Third Schedule of the Road Traffic Act, as amended. 3. Under the second count, Accused stands charged with the offence of neutral driving in breach of regulation 37 of Government Notice 97 of 1954 and section 190 (1) (3) of the Road Traffic Act. 4. Accused pleaded not guilty under the first count and guilty under the second count and at trial, Accused was not represented by counsel. The trial. 5. For the prosecution, Police Sergeant Perrine testified that on 13 April 2019, at 08.45 hours, he was together with Police Constable Clair on mobile patrol in a police vehicle

registration mark:- 308 RM18. When he reached close to a pedestrian crossing found near the casualty room of the main entrance of Creve Coeur Hospital, Police Constable Clair stopped the police vehicle to allow a woman to cross the pedestrian crossing. At a certain point, a red motorcycle, registration mark:- 439 RY, rode by Accused and which was on neutral gear passed on the right side of the police vehicle causing the woman who was on the pedestrian crossing to stop and had to wait until the motorcycle had passed to continue her way. The police officers followed the motorcycle until he reached the hospital parking and Police Sergeant Perrine informed Accused of the offences he did commit. A fixed penalty notice was then send by post. 6. For the defence, Accused stated from the dock that Police Sergeant Perrine contravened him because latter grew upset as he (Accused) prevented Police Sergeant Perrine to speak to that woman. Assessments 7. I have assessed all the evidence on record. 8. As regards to the second count, upon his unequivocal guilty plea, I find Accused guilty under the second count. 9. As regards to the first count, Accused and Police Sergeant Perrine came forward with different version during the trial. There is also the version which Accused gave in his out- of- court statement where he confessed of having committed the two offences. 10. Now, the version which Accused gave during the trial was denied by Police Sergeant Perrine during his cross examination. However, after having examined the versions given by Accused and the version given by Police Sergeant Perrine, I find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt under the first count. This is being said for the following reasons. 11. After having heard the version of Police Sergeant Perrine, I must say that I have not found any indication of invention, exaggeration or evasiveness. I instead found same to be clear and honest. Furthermore, Police Sergeant Perrine maintained the version which he gave in examination in chief during his cross examination. Hence, after having observed his demeanours in Court while giving evidence, including the way in which he

gave his respective evidence, I have no hesitation to accept Police Sergeant as a witness of truth. 12. This is to be contrasted with the version which Accused came forward during the trial and also the version found in his out-of-court statement. 13. Accused first put his case during cross examination that Police Sergeant Perrine gave him a hand signal to overtake the police vehicle after he horned the driver in the police vehicle who had stopped in front of the pedestrian crossing and this was while Police Sergeant Perrine was talking to a woman. Second, from the dock, Accused stated that Police Sergeant Perrine contravened him because he (Accused) prevented Police Sergeant Perrine to talk to that woman. There is a third version which is to be found in the out – of – court statement recorded from Accused where he accepted of having committed the two offences. Hence in that context, taking into consideration the different versions which Accused came forward, I find him to be totally unreliable and not credible at all. I find that with these inconsistent and contradictory statements given by Accused has resulted in finding Accused not to be a witness of truth and hence, I find that Accused has failed to cast doubt in the prosecution case. Conclusion.

14. Therefore, for the reasons referred above, I find Accused guilty under both counts.

D.J.A Dangeot Senior District Magistrate Delivered on 24 June 2020