Police v Oliver Michael THOMAS

2024 LPW 32

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOWER PLAINE WILHEMS

In the matter of:

CN 6362/23

Police

Oliver Michael THOMAS

JUDGMENT
1. The accused stands prosecuted for the offence of failing to wear seat belt under regulations
87 and 125 of GN 53/2010 – The Road Traffic (Construction and Use of vehicles) Regulations
2010.

2. Accused pleaded not guilty and was unrepresented.

The case for the prosecution

3. The main witness for the prosecution is the contravening officer.

4. Witness no.1 testified to the effect that on the 11th November 2016, at around 11h26, he was
performing stop and check of vehicles in police uniform along Ollier Avenue, Rose-Hill when
he saw private car 6821 BZ 13, of make Nissan and of colour black, proceeding towards
Victoria Avenue coming from Royal Road, Belle Rose.

5. Noticing that the driver of the said vehicle was not wearing the seat belt, he signalled the latter
to stop the vehicle, which the latter did. He mentioned that the driver was one Mr Thomas
Oliver Michael, then aged 23, of B07, Police Quarters of Coromandel and with the latter’s
consent, he physically checked the seat belt and found it to be in good working order.

6. The contravening officer duly cautioned the driver of the offence committed and the latter
replied that he forgot to wear same (“mone oublier mette li”). Furthermore, the witness stated
that at no point in time did the driver complain of any illness or pain, nor did he produce any

1
 medical certificate restraining him to wear a seat belt nor did he opt to produce such medical
certificate at a police station within a delay of five days.
7. Finally, upon informing the driver that he may be issued with a fixed penalty notice, the driver
opted for the normal court procedure as he refused to settle the fine.

8. The witness identified the accused as the driver he contravened on the material day.

9. The witness was duly cross-examined.

The Defence Case

10. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the accused deposed under oath and stated that on
the material day, he was along Ithier Avenue which is adjacent to Ollier Avenue and that at
the given time, he was not driving. He stated that he was parked on the left side of the road
as he was waiting for a phone call. There were five or six police officers that were standing
along Ollier Avenue and upon turning around, they came towards him and told him to move.
One of the police officers spoke to him and told him that he did not have his seat belt on and
proceeded to issue a fixed penalty notice which he refused to be issued with as it was an
injustice towards him. Finally, he mentioned that there was never any check done on the seat
belt.

11. He was duly cross-examined.

Analysis of the evidence

12. The court has duly assessed the evidence on record and the demeanour of the prosecution
witness as well as the accused who deponed during the trial.

13. The court has equally considered the line of cross-examination adopted by the accused. In a
gist, the witness maintained the following:
a) there was nothing blocking his view;
b) the car was indeed on Ollier Avenue;
c) the distance between the car and himself was ten metres and he could see clearly that
the seat belt was off;
d) that he did not have his back turned towards the car and that he was facing the car
directly;
e) that there were two officers during the ERS stop and check and that he was the only
officer who approached the driver as is the practice;

2
 f) that he checked the seat belt by pulling the belt from the top right side down towards
the left side and found same to be working.

14. On the other side, the court has considered the cross-examination through which the accused
was subjected to and the court is of the view that the accused has not withstood the test of
cross-examination. There are a few disquieting features in his testimony.

15. Firstly, the court notes that although the accused had had precise questions to the
contravening officer, the accused had never put his case to the contravening officer. Indeed,
the contravening officer was not confronted with the accused’s version to the effect that the
latter was never driving at the material time and that the main reason why that was so was
because he was waiting for a phone call.

16. The next major contradiction in the accused’s version is with regards having to move his car.
In his deposition under oath, he clearly mentioned that the officers told him to move his car
and upon being cross-examined about this issue moments later, he quite surprisingly stated
that he never said that, thus creating a doubt on his overall credibility.

17. Finally, the court finds that, if the accused’s version was that he was never driving and
therefore there was no need to wear a seat belt in the first place, regrettably he never
contested the alleged reply that he made to the contravening officer upon being questioned,
to the effect that he forgot to wear the seat belt.

18. For these reasons above, the court was left unimpressed with the version and demeanour of
the accused and prefers the testimony of the contravening officer whom the court found to be
credible and reliable.

19. Consequently, court finds that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable
doubt and finds accused guilty as charged.

M I F NATHIRE
District Magistrate
This 13th May 2024