GH - OTENG v. THE STATE

Ollennu J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was convicted by the District Court, Nsawam, on two counts, namely, (i) careless driving, contrary to section 18 (1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance,1 and (ii) negligently causing harm, contrary to section 72 of the Criminal Code, 1960.2 He appealed from his conviction to the High Court, Accra, but his appeal was dismissed. He thereupon appealed to this court on five grounds the substance of all of which, taken together, is that the prosecution failed to prove any carelessness or negligence on the part of the appellant, and consequently the trial district court magistrate misdirected himself in holding that the accident was caused by the appellant swaying [p.353] his car to the left in the course of overtaking a scooter ridden by the victim of the accident.

The accident which resulted in the two charges occurred at mile 24 on the Accra-Suhum road while the appellant, driving a Volkswagon car was overtaking the scooter. According to the case for the prosecution which the trial district court accepted, the front wheels of the appellant’s car had gone past the scooter when the car brushed the side of the scooter as a result, the scooter zig-zagged, and eventually the rider of it, now deceased and the second prosecution witness, his son sitting behind him on the pinion, fell.

For the prosecution to succeed on the charge of careless driving they must prove that the defendant drove his car in a manner which, in the language of section 8 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1952, shows absence of due care and attention, or want of reasonable consideration for other persons using the road; similarly, for them to succeed on the charge of negligently causing harm, they must prove acts or omissions on the part of the defendant which amount to carelessness. On these issues the learned district magistrate directed himself, properly in our view, when he said:

"On the issue of careless driving and negligently causing harm it cannot be supposed that merely because an accident has happened and somebody had been injured and succumbed to his injuries, carelessness and negligence had in that sense arisen and it must follow that the accused drove without due care and attention or that he negligently caused harm. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."

Applying this principle the trial district magistrate said: "The final issue to resolve is whether it was the a

OTENG v. THE STATE

Areas of Law

JUDGMENT