R vs Boniface (Criminal Side No: 31 of 2007) [2013] SCSC 42 (5 April 2013)

R vs Boniface (Criminal Side No: 31 of 2007) [2013] SCSC 42 (5 April 2013)

The accused was not proven to have driven at a high or dangerous speed but failed to maintain a proper lookout and failed to stop his vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver would have done, amounting to negligent driving. The breathalyzer evidence was accepted as reliable, establishing the offence of driving with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit.

Citation
[2013] SCSC 42
Parties
Prosecution: Republic; Accused: Steve Jacques Boniface
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
5 April 2013
Case Number
Criminal Side No: 31 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Conviction on both counts
Legal Topics
Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, Driving With Excess Alcohol, Negligent Driving, Breathalyzer Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Causing Death by Dangerous Driving Driving With Excess Alcohol Negligent Driving Breathalyzer Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Prosecution

Steve Jacques Boniface

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused caused death by dangerous driving or negligence
  2. 2 Whether the accused drove with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit
  3. 3 Whether the breathalyzer evidence was reliable

Ratio Decidendi

The accused was not proven to have driven at a high or dangerous speed but failed to maintain a proper lookout and failed to stop his vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver would have done, amounting to negligent driving. The breathalyzer evidence was accepted as reliable, establishing the offence of driving with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit.

Court Disposition

Conviction on both counts

Orders

  • Accused found guilty of negligent driving contrary to section 24(1)(b) and (2) of the Road Transport Act (Cap 206) and convicted accordingly.
  • Accused found guilty of driving with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit and convicted accordingly.