clr/1976/1976_2_7.pdf

I976 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., A. LOIZOU, MALACHTOS, JJ.] Jan. 5 Io~NIS IOANNIS YIAKOUMIS, Appellant, v. YIAKOUMIS v. THE POLICE THE POLICE, Respondents. ( Criminal Appeal No. 3672). 5 10 Road Traffic—Careless driving—Section 8 of the Motor Vehiclesand Road Traffic Law, 1972 (Law 86 of 1972)—Collision at junction controlled by traffic lights—Whether or not somebody entering a junction with traffic lights in hisfavour can befound to be guilty of negligence, if he collideswith a carentering thejunction against the lights, is apossibility to be examined on the basisof the particular circumstances of each individual case—Circumstances in which suchaperson canbefound guilty of negligence—Grounds on whichconviction wasbased theproduct of speculation—Not at all safe to hold that the chargewasproved withthe certaintyrequired in a criminal case. Traffic lights—Collision atjunction controlled by traffic lights. 15 20 A car driven by the appellant collided with another car, at a junction controlled by trafBc lights. The Judge acquitted the appellant on a count charging him with failure to stop at the trafBc lights; but, he proceeded to convict him on a count charging him with careless driving on the ground that the appellant did not slow down at the trafBc lights when entering the junction, but kept on driving at the same speed, not below 30 m.p.h. The Judge stressed that there were no signs of the appellant having applied his brakes or having taken any other precaution. The appellant appealed against conviction: 25 Held, allowing the appeal, whether or not somebody who enters a junction with the lights in his favour can be found guilty of negligence, if he collides with a car entering the junction against the lights, is a possibility to be examined on the basis of the particular circumstances of each individual case (see, inter alia, Wilkinson's Road TrafBc Offences, 7th ed. pp. 246248, and Radburn v. Kemp [1971] 3 All E.R. 249). Merely on 7 1976 Jan. 5 lOANNIS YIAKOUMIS V. THE POLICE the strength of what the Judge stated, as above, and which to a very large extent are the product of speculation based on the resultant position of the appellant's car, it was not at all safe to hold that thecharge of drivingwithout duecareand attention was proved with the certainty required in a criminal case. 5 Appeal allowed. Cases referred to: Radburnv. Kemp [1971] 3 All E.R. 249. Appeal against conviction. Appeal against conviction by loannis Yiakournis who was io convicted on the 20th November, 1975 at the District Court of Nicosia (Criminal CaseNo. 2249/74) on one count of the offence of driving without due care and attention, contrary to section 8 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law, 1972(Law No. 86/72) and was sentenced by Artemides, D.J. to pay £10.-fine 15 with £1.- costs. A. Soupashis, for the appellant. S. Nicolaides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered by:- 20 TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.: The appellant was convicted on a charge of driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention contrary to section 8 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law, 1972 (Law 86/72). He was, also, charged with failing to stop at traffic lights, but on that count he was acquitted. 25 The case was brought to Court as a result of a collision of a car driven by the appellant with another car, at a junction controlled by traffic lights. At the trial there were put forward conflicting versions concerning the exact state of the lights at the time when the ap- 30 pellant entered the junction; but the trial Judge found that he was not prepared to reject without doubt the appellant's version that the lights were, at that time, green in his favour, and that, therefore, they were red on the side of the other driver with whose vehicle the appellant collided in the junction. 35 So, the Judge acquitted the appellant on the count charging him with failure to stop at the traffic lights; but, he proceeded to convict the appellant on the count charging him with careless 8 driving, on the ground that the appellant did not slow down at the traffic lights when entering thejunction, but kept on driving at the same speed, not below 30 m.p.h.; the Judge stressed that there were no signs of the appellant having applied his brakes 5 or having taken any other precaution. 1976 an ' IOANNIS YIAKOUMIS v. THE POLICE Whether or not somebody who enters a junction with the traffic lightsin hisfavour can befound to beguilty of negligence, if he collides with a car entering the junction against the lights, is a possibility to be examined on the basis of the particular 10 circumstances of each individual case (see, interalia, Wilkinson's Road Traffic Offences, 7th ed. pp. 246-248, and Radburn v. Kemp, [1971] 3 All E.R. 249); it is, for example, possible, in special circumstances, for somebody who passed a controlled junction with the traffic lights in hisfavour to be found negligent 15 for not having kept a proper lookout due to'having failed completely to take into account the possibility of a car entering the junction against the statutory requirement to stop at a red traffic light; but merely on the strength of what the Judge stated, as above, in the present case, and which to a very large extent 20 are the product of speculation based on the resultant position of the appellant's car, it was not at all safe, in our view, to hold that the charge of driving without due care and attention was proved with the certainty required in a criminal case. We, therefore, have decided to allow this Appeal and set 25 aside the appellant's conviction. Appeal allowed. 9