Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 juin 2020, 2020 PL2 37 – Police v Abel

1

Police v Abel

2020 PL2 37

POLICE v ABEL

CN: 1848/19 THE DISTRICT COURT OF PORT LOUIS (Division II)

In the matter of:-

Police

v.

Jonathan Steeve ABEL

JUDGMENT

Accused is prosecuted under four counts for the following offences : 1. Molesting a public officer in breach of sections 3(1)(a) and 3(2) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act 1982 (“POPA”); 2. Obstruction of motor-vehicle in breach of sections 154 and 163(1)(a)(iii)(b) of the Road Traffic Act (“RTA”); 3. Breach of condition attached to provisional licence (no letter ‘L’) in breach of Regulation 55(1)(c) of GN 97/54 coupled with sections 44(2)(b) and 190 of the RTA and the 4th Schedule as added by Regulation 3 of GN 158/2002; 4. No competent driver in breach of Regulations 55(1)(a) and 51 of GN 97/54 as amended by Regulation 6 of GN 222/89 coupled with sections 44(2)(b) and 190 of RTA.

The said offences were allegedly committed on 5 October 2017.

Accused pleaded not guilty to the four counts and was not represented by Counsel.

The case for Prosection rests on the tesimony of Witness no. 1, PC 528 Bukhory, posted at Fanfaron Police Station and on the testimony of Witness no.2, PC 7103 Ajeda, posted at Traffic Unit North, and on following documents which are on record : • Certificate from NTA for the vehicle 4822 ZU 06 [marked as Doc A]; • Oficial status of Witness no.2, PC Ajeda, and that of Witness no.3, PC Sawarath [marked as Doc B and Doc B1]; • Licence details from Traffic Branch for Accused [marked as Doc C]; and

• Extracts from Diary Book nos. 106 and 110 from Fanfaron Police Station dated 09.01.2018 at 12.12.47 and at 12:17:56 respectively [marked as Doc D and Doc D1].

As regards, the offences under Counts 3 and 4, Doc C produced by Prosecution is of relevance inasmuch it shows the records available at the Traffic Branch as at 09.01.2018, and indicates that on 11.02.2008 a Provisional Motorcar Licence was issued to Accused.

The holder of a Provisional Driving Licence has to comply with the conditions set out under Regulation 55(1) of the Road Traffic Regulations 1954 [GN 97/1954]. Subsection (c) of the said Regulation 55(1) provides that the vehicle while being driven by the holder of a Provisional Driving Licence shall clearly display in a conspicuous position on the front and on the back of the vehicle the letter " L " painted white on a black background, six inches in height, one inch in thickness and four inches in width. In addition, subsection (a) of the said Regulation 55(1) provides that the holder of a Provisional Driving Licence shall use the vehicle only when under the supervision of a person who has been the holder of a driving licence, other than a provisional licence, for at least two years, or has passed a test under Regulation 51, and such person shall be present with him in the vehicle.

In the present matter, Witness no. 2 testified under solemn affirmation that he noticed that no letter “L” was displayed on the vehicle which Accused was driving and that he was driving alone at the material time. The testimony of Witness no. 2 as well as Doc C remained unchallenged by Accused. In the circumstances, the Court is entitled to rely on the testimony of Witness no. 2 and Doc C to conclude that Prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Accused under Counts 3 and 4.

As regards, the offences of molesting a public officer and obstruction of motor-vehicle under Counts 1 and 2, Witness no.2 stated during examination in chief that he was on duty on 05.10.2017 at 14.15 at Farquar Street Port Louis and he saw the car 4822 ZU 06 obstructing the free passage. He further stated that when he told Accused that the said car was obstructing the free passage, the latter replied to him “Bousse to liki do Pilon, guete ki to pou faire”. Accused denied being rude, and stated that, on 03.10.2019 at 3.30, he was driving along Fanfaron road, and when he stopped to allow two old ladies cross the road, Witness no. 2 swore at him by using the following words : “Roule sa gogotte la”. Accused further stated that on 05.10.2019, he was again driving near the bus station and Witness no. 2 asked his colleague to stop Accused to take his personal details. During cross-examination, Accused rectified his testimony by saying that the incidents occurred in 2017 and not in 2019. When it was put to him as to why he did not report to the Police that Witness no. 2 swore at him, he stated that the Police refused to take his statement. In that respect, Prosecution produced Doc D and Doc D1 which are extracts of the Diary Book recorded by Witness no. 1, CPL Bukhory, at Fanfaron Police Station showing that Accused called twice on 09.01.2018 to enquire about the charges against him, to wit, Molesting Public Officer and Obstruction of Motor-vehicle, and Accused elected not to give a written statement but to testify in Court. Having regard to the testimony of Witness no. 2, the testimony of Accused, their demenour, Doc D and Doc D1, the Court finds that Prosection has proved the offences under Counts 1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt.

On the basis of the above, the Court finds Accused guilty as charged under Counts 1 to 4.

Z Cassamally (Dr), Ag. District Magistrate, ` 30.06.20