Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 mars 2026, 2026 MBG 12 – Police v Fangoo

1 Police v Fangoo

2026 MBG 12

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRAND PORT

In the matter of: Cause Number: 1053/23 POLICE v BIBI SAMEEM FANGOO

JUDGMENT 1. The Accused stands charged with the offence of Driving Without Due Care and Attention in breach of Sections 123C (1)(a), 52 and 2 nd

Schedule of the Road Traffic Act. The date of the alleged offence is 18.01.2021.

2. She pleaded not guilty and was inops consilii at trial stage.

3. The case for the prosecution was conducted by SI Kistamah.

CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION 4. In furtherance of its case, the prosecution produced two certificates from the National Transport Authority which were marked as Doc A and Doc B, respectively.

5. Witness No. 3, PC 102 Aubeelucksing, produced a rough sketch of the locus of the accident which he drew after taking notes and measurements. It was marked as Doc C. He explained the various points depicted on the said document. He explained that Flamant Road is a main road and Nyon Road is a less important road. There are stop lines along Nyon Road which are visible. He was not cross examined.

2 6. Witness No. 1, PS 10328 Manikion, stated under oath that he examined the two vehicles which were involved in the road traffic accident and he drew up a report which he produced in Court. The report was marked as Doc D. He also produced a defence statement which he recorded under caution from the Accused on 18.01.21. The statement was marked as Doc E. He was not cross examined.

7. Witness No. 2, PS 225 Anthony, also produced a defence statement which he recorded under caution from the Accused on 18.08.22. The document was marked as Doc F. He was not cross examined.

8. Witness No.4, Mr Sayed Saheed Ghaboos, testified under oath and explained that on the material day, he was driving his car bearing registration mark 1567 ZU 05 along Flamant Street, Mahebourg at a speed of 20 to 30 km/h. He was driving on the left side and when he reached the junction of Flamant Street and Nyon Road, a car emerged and knocked against the frontside of his car. He stopped his car and the other car ended its course in a nearby canal. Flamant Street is a main road and Nyon Street is a less important road. There was a white line on Nyon Street and it was visible. He showed the point of impact to the police. At the material time of the accident, the weather was clear and the road was in good condition. He identified the Accused as being the driver of the other car.

9. He was cross examined during which he stated that the vehicle driven by the Accused emerged suddenly.

CASE FOR THE DEFENCE 10. The Accused testified under oath and stated that she stopped but a bus was blocking her view. It was a difficult blind corner. She emerged slowly and saw a vehicle which did not stop. The vehicle knocked against the back of her car and she ended up in a canal.

3 11. She was cross examined during which she admitted that Nyon Road is a less important road and she had to cross a main road. She agreed that the bus was 6 metres from the border of the road as stated by Witness No.3. She added that she had already emerged significantly when she saw the other car. It was at a distance of 10 metres. She was at the middle of the road when she saw the other car. She stated that she had an intuitive feeling to go faster. She did not apply her brake. She stated that she took all precautions as her children were in the car. She agreed that had she been going slowly the other car would have knocked against the leftside of her car instead of the back of her car. She maintained that she took all precautions.

12. A defence witness was called under oath, Miss Sumaiya Fangoo. She stated that there was a bus which blocked the road and when they saw the other car it was too late. She stated under cross examination that the Accused is her mother, half of the Accused’s car had already emerged, and they were halfway along the road when they saw the other vehicle. She stated that the distance with the other vehicle was at around one metre and a half. It was put to her that the distance stated by the Accused was 10 metres. She answered that she was at the back. She stated that they were emerging a bit fast when they saw the vehicle and when the collision happened, the Accused panicked, looked at them, and lost control of her car. The Accused lost control because of the collision.

THE LAW 13. 123C. Driving without due care or reasonable consideration (1) Any person who drives a motor vehicle on a road or other public place (a) without due care and attention; or … shall commit an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than 5,000 rupees nor more than 15,000 rupees and to impri sonment for a term not exceeding 6 months.

4 ANALYSIS 14. The principle of the presumption of innocence is enshrined in Section 10(2) of our Constitution. This concept is further embedded in our criminal law through the ‘Golden Thread’ principle which essentially confirms that the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt- Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462 (HL).

15. In the present matter, the prosecution has to prove that the Accused departed from the standard of care and skill that in the particular circumstances of the case would have been exercised by a reasonable, prudent and competent driver, and the test is an objective one – MOHUN L. v THE STATE 2012 SCJ 464

16. I have taken into account all the evidence on record. It is undisputed that the road on which Witness No.4 was driving was a main road and Nyon road, where the Accused was driving, is a less important road. There was therefore a duty upon the Accused to keep a proper lookout and emerge carefully. However, there is evidence from Witness No.4, the testimony of whom I have no reason to doubt, that the Accused emerged suddenly. I have also taken note that as per Doc C, the same point of impact was shown by both Witness No.4 and the Accused and same is found in the middle of Flamant Road. 4.

17. Witness No. 4 has explained the circumstances of the accident in a clear and coherent manner. He explained that the car of the Accused emerged suddenly and the collision occurred. I have no reason to doubt his version of events. As per Doc D, the car of the Accused sustained damages at the left side while the car of Witness No.4 had damages at the left nearside and the front bonnet. The damages give credence to the version of Witness No.4 that the vehicle of the Accused cut across his path. Moreover, the fact that the Accused ended her path in a canal suggests that she was driving at a high speed. This is supported by the

5 admission of the Accused under oath that she followed her intuition and she drove faster. The defence witness also stated under oath that they were emerging at a fast speed.

18. I have taken note of the Accused’s version that a bus was blocking her view. As per Doc C¸ the said bus was around 6 metres from the border of the road. It therefore follows, from an objective viewpoint, that a reasonable, prudent, and competent driver would be expected to reduce speed and maintain heightened caution. I have noted that the Accused had admitted that she had emerged halfway when the collision happened. She maintained that she was driving slowly but also contradicted herself during cross examination and stated that she was speeding. A version which is corroborated by the defence witness. She therefore emerged almost halfway on the main road without having a clear view and without keeping a proper lookout as per her own evidence.

19. I have also taken note of the fact that the Accused stated that her car was hit at the back. However, Doc D depicts a side-entry collision. I have also taken note of the admission of the defence witness that the Accused lost control of her car. She panicked and looked away. Therefore, despite claiming that she took all precautions, the Accused entered a main road halfway with a blocked view, accelerated, and looked away from the road. The actions of the Accused support the conclusion that the she failed to exercise due caution as would any reasonable, prudent, and competent driver.

20. In light of the above, I therefore find that the Accused drove without due care and attention and I find the Accused guilty as charged.

6 BFS PAUROBALLY Acting District Magistrate This 30 th March 2026