Download LTA v Patrick Singh Judgements - Law Fiji

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: HAA 005 OF 2004S
Between:
LAND TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
Appellant
And:
PATRICK SINGH
Respondent
Hearing: 2 nd April 2004
Judgment: 8 th April 2004
Mr. V. Vosarogo for LTA
Respondent in Person
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal by the Land Transport Authority
against the acquittal of the Respondent on the following
charge:
Statement of Offence
DANGEROUS FITTING: Contrary to Regulation 43
(1) (a) and 122 of Land Transport (Vehicle
Registration and Construction) Regulations
2000.
Particulars of Offence
PATRICK SINGH s/o JAMES SHANKAR SINGH on the
30 th of August 2001 at Suva in the Central
Division drove a motor vehicle (private) on
Grantham Road (Rups) with dangerously fitted
bull bar, which was likely to cause bodily
injury to any person or damage to another
vehicle or property in collision.

2
The Respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge and
the case was set for hearing on the 21 st of November 2003.
The evidence was that in 2000 and 2001, members of the
public who had “bull bars” attached to their vehicles, were
told to come to the Land Transport Authority to apply for
approval. Bull bars are mechanical or body parts which are
fitted onto the vehicle as an option.
On the 22 nd of August 2001, Deve Moca, an LTA
authorised officer was on duty at Grantham Road, when he
saw DJ173, the Respondent’s vehicle. His companion, also
an LTA Officer stopped the vehicle and asked the Respondent
if he had approval to have the bull bars. He said he had
none. He was issued with a Traffic Infringement Notice and
was warned for prosecution. The witness then said “that
same vehicle with same bull bars is still dangerous today
to other persons and vehicles but it is legal because of
the permit from LTA.”
Mohammed Hussein (PW3) said he had issued a defects
notice to the Respondent because the vehicle was dangerous.
However the vehicle was no longer dangerous because the
Respondent had paid $74 and had been issued with a permit
to drive with the bull bars.
PW4, Teresia Losalini Rasei, a vehicle examiner, said
that she had inspected the vehicle on the 30 th of August
2001. She had checked the bull bars and found them to be
within the legal limits. She then issued an approval
notice for the bull bars.

3
On the 22 nd of December 2003, the learned Magistrate
ruled that there was no case for the Respondent to answer.
He said:
“What actually surprised the Court was that
this T3 bull bars are still classified as
dangerous fittings likely to cause bodily
injuries to any person or damage to another
vehicle or property in collision; and without
any modification to make it safer, can be made
legal with the payment of $74.00 and a permit
issued by the Land Transport Authority. This
is really absurd.”
He held that if the bull bars were dangerous, then
they should not be approved after payment of a fee, and
that therefore there was no case to answer.
The Authority appeals against this finding.
grounds of appeal are:
The
“(a) Erred in law and in fact when it
accepted that the bull bar fitted to
the respondent’s vehicle was a type
that was approved by the appellant.
(b)
(c)
(d)
Erred in law and in fact in its finding
that all witnesses were aware that it
was an approved type.
Was wrong in law when it misapplied the
regulations applicable to the fitting
of accessories to vehicles.
Misdirected himself in law in finding
that there was no case to answer for
the respondent.”

4
In his submissions in court, counsel for the Authority
said that the offence was a strict liability offence, and
that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the
danger alleged had been removed by the issuing of a permit.
He submitted that Regulation 43(2) provided that the
Authority could approve bull bars which are technically
essential to the use of the vehicle. He further submitted
that Regulation 43 was aimed at those who drove with bull
bars without approval, and the purpose of the Regulation
was the protection of the public from potentially dangerous
bull bars. He asked that I substitute a finding that there
was a case to answer.
The Respondent said that the only question for the
Magistrate was whether the bull bars were dangerous. He
said that the fact that the Authority now allowed him to
keep the bull bars without modification suggests that they
were not, and are not, dangerous.
Regulation 43(1)(a) of the Land Transport (Vehicle
Registration and Construction) Regulations 2000 provides
that no motor vehicle may be fitted with an object
protruding from the vehicle so that it is likely to cause
bodily injury to any person or damage to another vehicle in
collision. Regulation 43 also provides that the Authority
may authorise fittings which are technically essential to
the vehicle. There is no reference to the word “dangerous”
in the section although the heading reads “Dangerous
Fittings.”
The elements of the offence are:

5
1. The accused’s motor vehicle;
2. Was fitted with;
3. An object which protruded from the vehicle;
4. Which was likely to increase the risk of
bodily injury or damage to another vehicle.
There was no dispute that the Respondent drove DJ173.
Nor is it in dispute that it was fitted with a bull bar not
technically essential to the vehicle. The only matter in
dispute was whether the bars were likely to cause injury or
damage in a collision. What was the evidence that the bars
were dangerously fitted? The vehicle examiner, PW4 said
that the bars were “within the legal limits.” Mohammed
Hussein PW3 said he issued a defects notice on the basis
that the vehicle was dangerous on 30 th August, “but not now
after accused has paid $74 and was given permit by LTA.”
What is likely to cause damage and injury in a
collision must surely be a question of fact, based on
evidence led. The test is an objective one. Someone
should have given evidence of the damage that was likely to
be caused by the bull bars on the Respondent’s car. But
there was no such evidence. Instead the Authority later
allowed the Respondent to keep the bars. Surely if the
bars were potentially dangerous, approval would never have
been given. There was no evidence at all that the bull
bars, objectively speaking, would be dangerous to the
public in a collision. Instead, the evidence suggested
otherwise.
I am not persuaded by counsel’s submission that the
Regulation should be read as a prohibition on the use of
unapproved bull bars. The words of the Regulation are

6
clear, precise and unambiguous. The prohibition is in
relation to potentially dangerous fittings, and the onus is
on the prosecution to prove potential danger. It will be
necessary to call evidence as to the danger posed by those
bull bars. The issuing of permits in relation to the bull
bars is of limited importance except to show that the
Authority itself may not consider the bars dangerous and
that they are technically essential to the vehicle.
However, even the issuing of a permit will not rob a
dangerous fitting of its dangerous qualities, if the court
has decided that those fittings are dangerous. A permit
may however deprive the prosecution of the ability to prove
that the bull bars were not technically essential, since a
permit can only be granted under Reg. 43(2) when the
fittings are technically essential.
In this case there was no evidence led of potential
danger an essential element of the offence. The learned
Magistrate rightly upheld the submission of no case to
answer.
This appeal is dismissed.
…………………………………………………………
Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE
At Suva
8 th April 2004