(1987) 2 CLR 83
1987 May 26
[TRIANTAFYLLIDES. P., LORIS AND STYLIANIDES. JJ.]
PETER MING,
Appellant,
v.
THE POLICE,
Respondent.
(Criminal Appeal No. 4796).
Careless driving — The Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law 86/72. section 8 — All that is required to support a conviction is negligence sufficient to establish civil liability — Collision with a stationary unlit vehicle — Appellant travelling at a speed of 80 kilometres with his head-lamps in the dipped position, whilst there was no oncoming traffic — He applied breaks, but did not avoid collision — In the circumstances rightly convicted.
On 13.9.86 at about 1.15 a.m. the appellant, who was driving a saloon car along the Xylophagou - Ayia Napa main road at a speed of 80 kilometres per hour with his head lamps dipped, noticed at a distance of about 40 meters an unlit stationary vehicle on his left side of the road. The appellant applied breaks, but did not manage to avoid collision with the aforesaid car.
This is an appeal against his conviction for the offence hereinabove referred to.
Held, dismissing the appeal: (1) The range of appellant's vision was considerably curtailed by reason of the fact that he was travelling with his head - lamp in the dipped position notwithstanding that there was no oncoming traffic. As a result he did not manage to notice the other car in time and thus avoid the collision.
(2) In the light of the principle that negligence sufficient to establish civil liability is all that is required to support a conviction under section 8 of Law 86/72 and the facts of this case, the appellant was-rightly convicted.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases referred to:
Mylordis v. Police (1981) 2 C.L.R. 219;
Charalambous v. Police (1982) 2 C.L.R. 134.
Appeal against conviction.
Appeal against conviction by Peter Ming who was convicted on the 25th October, 1986 at the District Court of Famagusta (Criminal Case No. 2526/86) on one count of the offence of careless driving contrary to section 8 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law, 1972 (Law No. 86 of 1972) and was sentenced by Eliades, D.J. to pay £30.- fine.
N. Zomenis, for the appellant.
A.M. Angelides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents.
TRIANTAFYLLIDES P.: The Judgment of the Court will be delivered by Loris J.
LORIS J.: On October 25,1986, the appellant was found guilty by the District Court of Larnaca (T. Eliades D.J.) of careless driving contrary to the provisions of section 8 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law, 1972, (Law No. 86 of 1972) and was sentenced to a fine of £30.-
The present appeal is directed against conviction only.
The salient facts of this case are briefly as follows:
On 13.9.86 at about 1.15 a.m. the appellant, a tourist was driving his wife's left-hand drive 'Volvo' saloon car, under registration No. 241V86, along Xylophaghou - Ayia Napa main road with a direction towards Ayia Napa.
It was dark at the time, the road at the scene of the accident was not lit and the appellant - according to his statement to the Police, which he adopted at his trial by a statement from the dock - was driving the aforesaid vehicle keeping his left hand side of the road, at a speed of 80 kilometres per hour with his head lamps dipped.
It is on record that the full beam of the head lights of appellant's vehicle could illuminate 96 meters ahead, whilst the visibility was reduced to 37.36 meters when the head lights were dipped.
The road at the scene of this accident was asphalted and dry at the material time; the width of the asphalted portion of the road is 5.60 meters and there are usable berms 1.40 wide, on either side of the asphalt.
According to the aforesaid statement of the appellant himself, he saw - whilst driving as aforesaid - a man standing in the middle of the road signaling to him to stop and immediately thereafter an unlit stationary car at a distance of about 40 meters ahead on the left hand side of the road; the appellant immediately applied brakes in an effort to avoid collision with the stationary vehicle; his effort was unsuccessful and the left nearside of his car knocked against the offside front of the stationary vehicle.
The stationary car in question was a 'Jaguar' saloon under registration No. GX 240 belonging to ex-accused No. 1 who was involved in an accident on the same road shortly before the accident for which the appellant was being tried (as accused No. 2) in a separate count (Count 2) of the same charge sheet. (Famagusta Criminal Case No. 2526/86).
In order to complete the picture it may be added here that the point of impact of appellant's car with the stationary car (G.X. 240) which is marked XI on the sketch produced at the trial is 0.50 meters away from the left hand side of the road and 2.40 meters away from the centre of the road.
It is abundantly clear from the judgment of the Court below that the learned trial judge relied mainly on the statement of the appellant to the police which, as stated earlier on in the present judgment, was adopted fully by the appellant at his trial.
It is apparent from this statement that the appellant was driving at the material time in the dark on a road that was not lit at a speed of 80 kilometres per hour with his head lights dipped whilst there were no oncoming vehicles ahead; by keeping his head-lamps dipped at the time, the range of his vision was considerably curtailed, (Mylordis v. Police (1981) 2 C.L.R. 219 at p. 223) with the result that he did not manage to see the stationary car in time and apply effectively his brakes, avoiding thus the collision.
Bearing in mind (i) that negligence sufficient to establish civil liability is all that is required to support a conviction under s. 8 of Law 86/72 (Charalambous v. The Police (1982) 2 C.L.R. 134 at p. 143), and (ii) the facts of this particular case which emanate mostly from the admission of the appellant himself, we hold the view that the conviction of the trial Court cannot be faulted.
In the result present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο