19761202 TZHC Arusha

IN TH HIGH COURT OF TIJTZLNIL . 10 rnH . . LiTELILT J1RISIOQ.... HIGH COURT CHUIINLL LiIL NO. 34 OF 1976 ORIGINAL CRILINLL CLSE NO. .10 OF 1976 OF THE DISTIUCT COURT OF HANkNG' DISTI.ICT LT,BLT B'ORE: J. N. NflU(ZZL, Esq., District Maristrao IIIaiU KtJ1DLEL p...... .... •••.• • • • O • IiiLI1EP (Oriin1 Lecusod) versus, •. TH I't 1)UBL1-C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IEPONDENT (Orino1 ?roucubor) ... JtJDG1ENT - . ., ... ... .. p - JON..THJdT, J.,. The npo11rnb was convicteC on his own 1ccs of ui1ty , of three counts under the Road Traffic Let, nnncly, of Lirivind without havini a valicl liconco, drivind during imauthorised. hours and . causin: death: t1irouii ciangc'ous driving. On the first to CCJUnbS h is cJonuoncoc to fines of shs.600 -n 100, rcpoctivo1y, bit on th 3rd count ho ws sontonco to 3-i- yoar9' iiprieoncat on' i ioule soon the cppocl is directed nainly ogniiist this conviction and sentence. The appcl1ait in his affidavit acco:opanying the petition of appeal drawn an filcd by his advocate has claLaocl that at the linc of eading in bar ho was not in his norLial senses and it:ws. not othorwiso his intention to plead guilty. He says as a cooquônco of the accident on January 11, 1976 ho bccao aff1iccd by dizziness and head-ache during tnc porociho wa in renand prison. He claiias ho Was still in that stt of aindwhon the charges wc'e ror to hit' an he

plcc'c ui1ty o Lho. Ho soos howdver, tb be saying both that ho did' not know what exactly he was pleading to and that nt bing in a "fit condition to defend" hi.solf ho agrood to ,ovethi:ig that was put to hin. The charges wore road to hin bbvcn or eight days after thc; accident anc,' barring physical in-juxos of a scr.ous .nc.to , within that tine he. should certainly have recovered fron the sboQk. Tho learnod district nagistrato is to be coonondcd for the care he socias to have taken to see that the appellant understood and pleaded to vital facts of the off cnc.es as wore stated in the particulars. The prosecutOr then outlined the fasts at a- considerable length, id to then also the appdllnt agreed. Tho clear inprossion is gathered, therefore, that the appellant know what.ho was pleading to, while it would not be open to hiri now to sa that, although he nay have known what ho was saying ho was not being truthful. It is for a different consideration however that I think the appeal should be allowed with respect to the conviction of causing death through dangerous driving. The charo......./2 71 The chardc ir fr trn r b 42 of the ct Th't soction creates three offoncos anI not only :flQ.o These are the offoncos of reckless. driving -diving at an excessive speod O'nd Criving in e pgmacr whici i nerous The charge does not specify t1ib pgraph of the section which was contravonod but

it would appear from the partIculars of the offence.that the rlbvant, 1DrovJsions are those contained in pare (b) niiely, thoso of drivii. at excessive speëd The stateiont of cffenceoh the other hand seems to cite 3aragrsph (c) which relatoe to driving in a maimer which is dangcrous There is .thu cUshamary between the statement of offence and the particul'ars which purport to elucidateit. :. Accordingly q the appeal is allowed to the extent that the conviction of causing death through dangerous driving is set asido together with thosontcnce... The appellant is to be charged afresh ±or an offence more clearly stated and unabiguously particularisod. The appeal in regarclto the other two oIioncc'a is ie'iisacd • :. • (P. N. JONATHAN) Delivered in open Court at Ansha this 2nd day of December, 1976. AA (p. ivi... JONATHAN) PMJ/MTPLI. . JUDGE.