2C.L.R. 1987 May 26 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES Ρ I ORIS AND STYLIANIDES JJ 1 PETER MING, Appellant, ν T H E POLICE, Respondent (Cnmtnal Appeal No 5 4796) Careless dnvmg — TheMotor Vehicle':and Road TrafficLaw 86/72 section8 — All thatis required tosupportaconviction is negligencesufficient toestablish civil liability — Collision with astationary unht vehicle— Appellant travelling ataspeedof'80 kilometre* with hishead-lampsin thedipped position whilst there was no oncoming traffic ~- He applied breaks but did not avoid collision — In thecircumstances nghtly convicted 10 On 13 9 86 at about 1 1 5 a m the appellant who was dnvmg asaloon car alongthe Xylophagou - Ayia Napa mam roadataspeedof80kilometres per hour with hishead lamps dipped, noticedatadistanceof about 40 meters an unht stationary vehicle on his left side of the road The appellant applied breaks butdidnot manage toavoid collisionwith theaforesaidcar Thisisanappeal againsthisconvictionfortheoffencehereinabove referred to Held dismissing the appeal
(1)The range of appellants vision was 15 20 considerably curtailedby reasonofthefactthathewastravellingwith hishead - lamp in the dipped position notwithstanding that there was no oncoming traffic As a result he didnot manage to notice the other car in timeand thus avoid the collision
(2)In the light of the pnnciple that neoligence sufficient to establish civil liability is all that is required to support a conviction under section 8 o( Law 86/72 and the factsof this case, the appellant was nghtly convicted Appeal dismissed 25 Cases referredto Mylordts ν Police
(1981)2 C L R 219. Charalambous ν Police {\982)2 C L R 134 Appeal against conviction. Appealagainstconviction by PeterMingwho was convicted on 83 Mingv. Police
(1987)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 (LawNo.86 of 1972)and wassentenced byEliades, D.J. to pay £30.fine. 5 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 LorisJ. 10 LORIS J.:On October 25,1986, theappellant wasfound guilty bytheDistrictCourtofLamaca (T.EliadesD.J.)ofcarelessdriving contrary to the provisions of section 8 of the MotorVehicles and RoadTraffic Law, 1972,(Law No.86of 1972)andwassentenced toa fine of £30.- 15 The present appeal isdirected against conviction only. The salient facts of thiscaseare 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 20 road with a direction towardsAyia 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 athistrialbyastatement from the dock -wasdrivingtheaforesaid vehiclekeepinghisleft handsideofthe 25 road, at a speed of 80 kilometres per hour with his head lamps dipped. Itisonrecord thatthe full beam ofthehead lightsof appellant's vehicle could illuminate 96 metersahead, whilstthe visibilitywas reduced to37.36 meterswhen the head lightswere dipped. 30 The road atthe scene of thisaccident wasasphalted and dryat the material time;thewidth ofthe asphalted portion oftheroadis 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, 35 84 2C.L.H. 5 Ming v. Police LorisJ . he saw - whilst dnving as aforesaid - amanstanding inthe middle of theroad signalling tohimtostop andimmediately thereafter an unlitstationary car at a distance ot about 40 meters ahead on the left hand side of the road, the appellant immediately applied brakes inaneffort to avoid collision with thestationary vehicle his effort was unsuccessful and the left nearside of his car knocked against theoffside front of thestationary vehicle The stationary car in question was a 'Jaguar' saloon under registration No GX240 belonging toex-accused No 1who was 10 involved in an accident on the same road shortly before the accident for which theappellantwas being tned(asaccused No 2) in a separate count (Count 2) of the same charge sheet (Famagusta CriminalCase No 2526/86) In order to complete the picture itmay be added here thatthe 15 pointofimpact ofappellant's carwiththe stationary car(G X 240) which is marked XI on the sketch produced at the tnal is 0 50 meters away from the left hand side of the road and 2 40 meters away from thecentre of theroad Itisabundantly clearfrom thejudgment of theCourtbelow that 20 the learned trial judge relied mainly on the statement of the appellant to the police which, as stated earlier on m the present judgment, was adoptedfully by theappellantathistnal Itis apparentfrom thisstatementthattheappellantwas driving at thematenaltimeinthedark onaroadthatwas notlitata speed 25 of 80 kilometres per hourwith hishead 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, (Mylordisv Police
(1981)2 C LR 219atp 223) with the result thathe did notmanage tosee thestationary carintime 30 and apply effectively his brakes avoiding thus the collision 35 Beanng in mind (i) that negligence sufficient to establish civil liability is all that is required tosupport a conviction unders 8 of Law 86/72 (Charalambousν ThePolice
(1982)2C LR 134atρ 143),and (u)thefacts of thisparticularcasewhichemanatemostly from theadmission of theappellanthimself,we holdtheviewthat the conviction of thetnalCourtcannotbe faulted In theresult present appeal fails andis hereby dismissed Appeal dismissed 85