Republic Vrs Tanoh [2023] GHADC 444 (23 January 2023)

27/07/2022 IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT ASAMANKES ON THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023, BEFORE HIS WORSHIP GEORGE DAVIS KWESI OFORI (MR) - DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUIT No: B4/12/2023 THE REPUBLIC VRS. TIMOTHY TANOH J U D G E M E N T Accused in Court CHARGES: 1. Careless and Inconsiderate Driving Contrary to Section 3 of the Road Traffic 2004(Act 683), as amended by Act 761/2008. 2. Negligently Causing Harm, Contrary to Section 72 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act 29), as amended; 3. Driving without Licence, Contrary to Section 53 of the Road Traffic 2004 (Act 683) as amended by Section Act761/2008. SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE: It is their case that, on the 4th day of October, 2022, at about 6:40 a. m, the accused without due care and consideration drove carelessly and recklessly, without observing and considering the prescribed speed limit. That out of his recklessness, he knocked down the victim, PW1 herein, thereby negligently causing him harm and injuries. 1 | P a g e That when the accused was asked to produce his driving licence, he was not able to, which meant that at the time of the accident, the accused did not have a valid licence to drive a vehicle. SUMMARY OF ACCUSED PERSON’S EVIDENCE: It is his case that he did not drive carelessly and that it was the victim rather who did not observe traffic before crossing the road on that fateful day, leading to the accident and injuries to the victim. According to him, he had a valid licence on the day of the accident but he could not find it when the police demanded for it. That as a result, he went to the DVLA for REPLACEMENT, which they did and he tendered it in evidence, together with the notice text message he received from DVLD; (See Exhibits ‘1’ and 2’ dated 5th December, 2022. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION: From all the evidence before me, the issues that came up for determination are: a) Whether or not at the time of the accident, the accused had a valid driving licence; b) Whether or not the accused drove carelessly without due care and consideration, thereby causing harm or injuries to the victim, George Larweh. To succeed, the onus lies on the prosecution to prove both the actus reus (act of the offences charged) and mens rea (intent of the accused) in committing the offences beyond reasonable doubt. This is because it is trite law that an act alone would not constitute an offence unless it is committed with a criminal intent. Actus non facit reus nisi mens sit rea. See Section 10 and 11 of the 2 | P a g e Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) and awarded. With respect to the first issue, the prosecution alleged that at the time of the accident on the 4th day of October, 2022, the accused did not have a valid licence and that was why he could not produce same upon request, even after they had given him the chance to look for it since the accused claimed he did not have it on him. The accused on the other hand insisted that he had a valid licence on the date of the accident but it got missing, hence his decision to go for a REPLACEMENT, which was issued to him on 5th December, 2022. The ordinary meaning of replacement is to put something back in a previous position or place. In other words, a thing replaced is a thing that is already existing. ON the other hand RENEWAL or to RENEW a thing is to, for our purposes extend the period of validity of a thing. If the accused really replacement his missing license, the DVLA would only have printed his already existing license for him, as they have all licenses in their data base. In my opinion, the accused was given a renewed licence, and not replacement of a missing licence. The accident happened on 4th October, 2022. The date of his renewed licence was 5th December, 2022. If he had a valid licence at the time of the accident, his replaced licence would have pre-dated the licence which was given him. from these analyses and facts, it is my considered opinion that the accused did not have a valid licence on the date of the accident, but only went to renew his expired licence, and therefore the prosecution has been able to establish his 3 | P a g e guilt beyond reasonable doubt. With respect to the 2nd issue, it was the word of the accused against that of the prosecution, an oath against oath situation, which at this stage inures to the benefit of the accused, unless the Court could find some other evidence to the contrary. The Highway Code provides that a driver entering town shall not drive beyond 50 km per hour when entering town and beyond 20 kilometers per hour when in town. The place the accident occurred is a populated settlement with several buildings with pedestrians movements. This means that every reasonable driver must not drive beyond the 20km per hour, boldly displayed on our roads. If the driver had taken due care and drove at a speed limit of 20 km per hour, he could have avoided knocking down the victim because he could have applied his breaks pulling the car to a stop. The extent of injury suffered by the victim showed that the accused was driving more that the prescribed speed limit, which could result in serious injuries whenever there is impact. Therefore this reason, I reject the accused persons version of the evidence and accept the prosecutions’. From the facts and my analysis/evaluation of same it is my opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused person on all counts beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I convict the accused. (SGD) H/W GEORGE DAVIS KWESI OFORI (MAGISTRATE) 23/01/2023 4 | P a g e 5 | P a g e