ERNEST FREDERICK BURKE VS THE REPUBLIC

This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Court, Tema, in which the appellant was convicted on two (2) counts of the offences of Careless and Inconsiderate Driving contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act, 2004 (Act 683) as amended by the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 761) and Negligently Causing Harm contrary to section 72 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). In respect of count one(1), he was sentenced to a fine of forty (40) penalty units or in default two (2) months’imprisonment and to a fine of thirty (30) penalty units or in default one (1) month’s imprisonment on count two (2), both sentences to run concurrently.

The case of the prosecution was that between 10. 00 pm and 11. 00 pm, the appellant, then in charge of a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado with four (4) other persons on board, run into the complainant’s Geo Prism taxi cab.

According to the prosecution, this incident occurred because the appellant without due care and attention drove his vehicle over a heap of red sand which was on the road.

This heap of red sand, the prosecution alleged, was located about 4. 16 metres to the nearside edge of the road in the lane of the appellant such that when the appellant drove over it, he lost control of his vehicle which then veered into the opposite lane and crashed into the complaint’s vehicle.

The prosecution further stated that as a result both vehicles were damaged with the occupants of the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado suffering no injuries, while the complainant sustained injury in his right leg.

In evaluating the evidence of the record, the trial judge made the following findings of fact: i. The heap of sand was in the lane of the appellant and it was the appellant who drove his vehicle over the said heap of sand.

Even though the evidence adduced suggested that there was no light in the area in question where the accident occurred, the vehicle driven by the accused had headlights which were functioning properly.

It was the vehicle of the appellant which was in the adjacent lane.

From these findings of fact, the trial judge concluded that“It is clear from the evidence adduced in court that the accused driver was driving in his lane and ran his vehicle into a heap of sand and in his effort to stabilize his vehicle, ran into PW1’s vehicle which was in the adjacent lane.

There was evidence adduced to show that there was a heap of sand on the accused’s lane and also the area in question was dark.

However, the court is of the v