Supreme Court of Mauritius, 26 mai 2020, 2020 ROD 23 – POLICE V EDOUARD HORKINSON

POLICE V EDOUARD HORKINSON

2020 ROD 23

Cause Number: 1627/2019

THE COURT OF RODRIGUES

In the matter of:-

POLICE

V

HORKINSON EDOUARD

Judgment

Introduction

1. Accused stands charged with the offence of exceeding speed limit in breach of sections 124 (1) (4) (a) of the Road Traffic Act coupled with the First Schedule of Government Notice 25 of 2011 of the Road Traffic Act and 191, 192, 193 coupled with 4 th schedule of the Road Traffic Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and was not assisted by Counsel at his trial.

The case for the prosecution

2. On 5 November 2018, around 08.30 hours, Woman Police Constable Louis (“W4”) and Police Sergeant Andre (“W6”) were performing a speed check exercise on a public road close to Jean Paul II Stadium. The limitation speed in the area in which the speed check exercise was taking place was 35 Km/Hr and the radar was being held by W6. At the material time, W6 signalled W4 to stop a grey Toyota car, registration mark:- 2RJN 99 as, after having pointed the radar on the vehicle, it registered a speed 47Km/Hr. The vehicle was coming from Grand la Fouche Corail and was proceeding towards La Ferme. The driver of the vehicle, Accused in the present case, was stopped by W4 and W6 showed Accused

the reading on the radar. Accused was then informed of the offence he did commit and was issued a fixed penalty notice.

The case for the defence.

3. From the dock, Accused stated that W6 was verifying a lorry of registration mark:- 58 RZL95 at the time of the alleged offence. Accused further stated that W6 signalled him to stop his vehicle while W6 had his back at him.

The law

4. Section 124 (1) (4) (a) of the Road Traffic Act provides that:

Any person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a prescribed speed limit, or the speed limit indicated on a traffic sign erected under subsection (2), shall commit an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding 5000 rupees or, in the case of a third or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding 10,000 rupees.

Assessment of facts.

5. I have assessed all the evidence on record.

6. For the prosecution, its case rests on the evidence adduced by W4 and W6. Having had the opportunity of assessing their demeanours during their oral evidence and cross examination, I find that there was no indication of invention, exaggeration or evasiveness, and they consistently presented themselves as witnesses of truth. Furthermore, after having heard their versions and after having compared same with the version of Accused, I find that I can safely rely on the versions of the two

prosecution witnesses. This is being said because I have found that Accused, despite of having put his case from the dock and also during the cross examination of the two prosecution witnesses, has failed to substantiate the points that he put forward.

7. First, Accused’s case is that it was not W6 but one Police Constable Perrine who was handling the radar at the material time. Accused put to W4 in cross examination that it was Police Constable Perrine and not W6 who was handling the radar but W4 maintained her version and replied that it was W6. The same point was put to W6 who also maintained that it was him who was handling the radar and even went on to say that he showed the reading of the speed displayed on the radar to Accused. Hence, I am of the view that Accused has not been able to shake the versions of both witnesses. In addition, I find that Accused point runs into the sands because Accused did not make reference to Police Constable Perrine in his out-of- court statement and only came up with that version during the trial

8. Second, Accused went on to say that W6 was either verifying a vehicle or was checking the speed of a lorry bearing registration mark:- 58 RZL 95. Accused put to W4 that W6 was not handling the radar because he was checking the speed of a lorry, registration mark:- 58 RZL95 at the material time. However, Accused stated from the dock and put to W6 that he was examining a lorry at the material time. To that,I find that the version put forward by Accused cannot be relied upon being given that Accused was himself inconsistent.

9. Hence, in the light of the above, I find that I can safely rely on the versions of both W4 and W6 and I find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused was driving his vehicle at a speed of 47Km/Hr. when the speed limit in that area was 35Km/Hr.

Conclusion

10. For the reasons set forth above, I find Accused guilty as charged.

D. Dangeot Senior District Magistrate Delivered on 26 May 2020.