Supreme Court dismisses appeal against conviction for driving without due care and without road licence.
Cipro (CY)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against his conviction for driving without due care and without a road licence. The trial court found the facts uncontested and correctly determined that negligence was a question of fact dependent on the specific circumstances of the collision. The appellate court upheld the conviction, noting that while the negligence was borderline, it was sufficient for guilt and that other drivers' negligence only affects sentencing.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IAMotor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law Cap.332 s.6; Motor Vehicle Regulations 1959 Regs.18 & 66: Negligence in traffic offences is a question of fact determined by the specific circumstances of each case, and a borderline degree of negligence is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IATesto completo
[*1204] 1967 October 19
(VASSILIADES, Ρ., TRIANTAFYLLIDES, HADJIANASTASSIOU, JJ.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Andreas Hji Michael,
Appellant,
v.
The Police,
Respondents.
(Criminal Appeal No.2887).
Road Traffic - Conviction - Driving a motor car without due care and attention - Driving same vehicle without road licence - Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law, Cap.332 and Regulations 18 and 66 of the Motor Vehicle Regulations 1959 - Negligence - Findings of trial Court.
D. Liveras, for the Appellant.
Μ. Spanos, Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:-
VASSILIADES, P.: This is an appeal against conviction, for driving a motor car without due care and attention, contrary to section 6 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law (Cap.332); and driving the same vehicle without road licence, contrary to Regulations 18 and 66 of the Motor Vehicle Regulations 1959.
The appeal is taken on several grounds which may be summarized in the contention that the finding of the trial Court on the issue of negligence, upon which the conviction rests, should he set aside. [*1205]
After hearing Mr. Liveras on behalf of the appellant, upon the evidence on record, regarding the circumstances in which the collision between the vehicles involved occurred, we find it unnecessary to call upon the respondent.
As stated by the trial Judge in the first part of his Judgment, "the facts of the case are simple end substantially uncontested". They are clearly set out in the Judgment; and need not be repeated here.
Moreover, the learned trial Judge’s approach to the issue of negligence, is undoubtedly correct; and, rightly in our opinion, it has not been criticised on behalf of the appellant. "Having gone through the authorities (set out in his judgment) - the learned trial Judge says - I have formed the opinion that in cases as the one under consideration, the question whether a driver is negligent or not, is one of fact, depending on the circumstances of each particular case" (p.14 E, F.).
This is a correct statement of the legal position, And it is with this approach, that the trial Judge reached his conclusion, that the appellant was guilty of negligence, in a degree sufficient to found a conviction, notwithstanding that the relevant circumstances make this a borderline case; and that the negligence of the appellant driver was of a small degree. Negligence on the part of other persons involved in the collision, is immaterial for the purposes of the conviction in a case of this nature; it can only go to sentence.
We unanimously take the view that it was open to [*1206] the trial Judge, on the evidence before him, to reach the conclusion upon which he convicted the appellant.
The appeal therefore fails, and shall stand dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.