In terms of section 52(4)(a) of the Road Traffic Act the court has a discretion whether or not to prohibit him from driving. The reason why accused was not prohibited from driving is that accused is a first offender who was driving an ordinary motor vehicle. “I write in response to the query raised with respect to the above reference.
#Particulars of negligence road traffic accident trial#
In her response, the trial magistrate stated:. I raised a query why the accused's license was not endorsed and also why he was not prohibited from driving for a certain period as required by the Road Traffic Act. These particulars were not disputed by the accused. (c) Failing to stop or act reasonably when an accident seemed imminent. (b) Failing to keep the vehicle under proper control. (a) Travelling at an excessive speed in the circumstances. The particulars of negligence are as follows: There were, however, no injuries sustained by either the accused or his passenger. It is common cause that he failed to engage into a suitable gear when approaching a slope. The allegation against the accused is that on 11th January 2007 he drove a motor vehicle, Toyota Hilux, along Guinea Fowl Valley Road, off Shurugwi Road, negligently resulting in it overturning and landing on its roof. He pleaded guilty, was convicted, and sentenced to a fine of $400, or, in default of payment, to 3 months imprisonment. The accused was charged with contravening section 52(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act as read with section 21(a) of Part LXXXIV of the Criminal Penalties Amendment Act Number 22 of 2001 'Negligent Driving'. This is a review judgment forwarded to me as per the usual procedure in terms of the Magistrate Court Act.
0 kommentar(er)
