Supreme Court of Mauritius, 17 janvier 2020, 2020 ROD 4 – POLICE V COLLET SENECK

POLICE V COLLET SENECK

2020 ROD 4

POLICE V COLLET SENECK

Cause Number: 1379/2019

THE COURT OF RODRIGUES

In the matter of:-

POLICE

V

SENECK COLLET

Judgment

Introduction. 1. Accused stands charged under two counts. 2. Under the first count, Accused is charged with the offence of driving a motor vehicle without licence in breach of sections 40 (1) (a) (2), 52 and 163 (1) (b) of the Road Traffic Act. 3. For the second count, Accused stands charged with the offence of failing to keep vehicle stationary as long as required by a police officer in breach of section 134 (2) (a) (ii) (b) and 163 (1) (a) (iii) (b) of the Road Traffic Act. 4. Accused pleaded not guilty under both counts and at trial, Accused was not represented by Counsel. The trial. 5. For the prosecution, Police Constable Guillaume (“W4”) testified that on 15 February 2018, at 10.50 hours, dressed in police uniform, he was performing a vehicle check on the main road of Pallisade. At the material time, he saw a Suzuki motorcycle registration

mark:- 441RP, coming from the direction of Bois Noir and was proceeding towards Mont Lubin. W4 signaled the rider, Accused in the present case, to stop but Accused could neither provide his driving licence nor a photocopy of his driving licence and asked W4 to give him a chance. Whilst W4 was recording the particulars of the insurance of the motorcycle and of the road licence, Accused understood that he was going to be contravened and he switched on his motorcycle and drove away. W4 testified that he did not give Accused the permission to go. 6. As regards to Accused, he testified that Accused never stopped him on that day. Assessments 7. I have assessed all the evidence on record. 8. In the present case, I am faced with two confliction versions. On the one hand, there is W4 who testified that he stopped Accused and I have on the other hand, Accused who testified that he was never stopped by W4. 9. However, what makes the version of Accused untenable is that he agreed in cross examination that he was stopped by W4 and that W4 was wearing a uniform at the material time and even went on to say that they (his friend and him) stopped at the intersection and this is where W4 signaled them to stop. Hence, there is indeed an admission from Accused to the fact that he was stopped by W4. In that respect, I find that W4 deponed as a witness of truth and that Accused failed to remain stationary as long as required by W4. As regards to the first count, the fact that I have found that Accused was indeed riding the motorcycle at the material time, I am of the view that the police has indeed proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused was riding a motorcycle without a driving licence. This is being said relying on the licence details produced by the prosecutor and which was not objected by Accused and in which it is to be found that the driving licence of Accused for motorcycle was cancelled on 16 June 2017.

Conclusion.

10. Therefore, for the reasons referred above, I find that the case for the Prosecution should succeed under both counts inasmuch as it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I find Accused guilty under both counts.

D.J.A Dangeot Senior District Magistrate Delivered on 17 January 2020