THE REPUBLIC v. TIMOTHY TANOH

J U D G E M E N T Accused in Court

CHARGES:

1. Careless and Inconsiderate Driving Contrary to Section 3 of the Road Traffic

2004(Act 683), as amended by Act 761/2008.

2. Negligently Causing Harm, Contrary to Section 72 of the Criminal Offences

Act 1960 (Act 29), as amended;

3. Driving without Licence, Contrary to Section 53 of the Road Traffic 2004

(Act 683) as amended by Section Act761/2008.

SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE:

It is their case that, on the 4th day of October, 2022, at about 6:40 a. m, the accused

without due care and consideration drove carelessly and recklessly, without

observing and considering the prescribed speed limit. That out of his recklessness,

he knocked down the victim, PW1 herein, thereby negligently causing him harm and

injuries.

That when the accused was asked to produce his driving licence, he was not able to,

which meant that at the time of the accident, the accused did not have a valid licence

to drive a vehicle.

SUMMARY OF ACCUSED PERSON’S EVIDENCE:

It is his case that he did not drive carelessly and that it was the victim rather who did

not observe traffic before crossing the road on that fateful day, leading to the accident

and injuries to the victim.

According to him, he had a valid licence on the day of the accident but he could not

find it when the police demanded for it. That as a result, he went to the DVLA for

REPLACEMENT, which they did and he tendered it in evidence, together with the

notice text message he received from DVLD; (See Exhibits ‘1’ and 2’ dated 5th

December, 2022.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

From all the evidence before me, the issues that came up for determination are:

a) Whether or not at the time of the accident, the accused had a valid driving

licence;

b) Whether or not the accused drove carelessly without due care and

consideration, thereby causing harm or injuries to the victim, George Larweh.

To succeed, the onus lies on the prosecution to prove both the actus reus (act of

the offences charged) and mens rea (intent of the accused) in committing the

offences beyond reasonable doubt. This is because it is trite law that an act

alone would not constitute an offence unless it is committed with a criminal

intent. Actus non facit reus nisi mens sit rea. See Section 10 and 11 of the

Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) and awarded.

With respect to the first issue, the prosecution alleged that at the time of the

accident on the 4th day of October, 2022, the accused did