Actualités

Testé positif lors d’un contrôle: Sentence rayée contre Seewoosagur Jugessur en appel!

Testé positif lors d’un contrôle: Sentence rayée contre Seewoosagur Jugessur en appel!

Le conducteur, Seewoosagur Jugessur, ne paiera pas des amendes de Rs 5000 et Rs 11000 et ne verra sa licence suspendue pour une période de 8 mois. En appel, les juges P.Fekna et AD Narain sont arrivés à la conclusion que “it cannot be said for the purposes of count 1 and section 123H(4) of the Road Traffic Act that the appellant was given the appropriate warning under section 123H(5) of the Road Traffic Act or given an opportunity to put across a ‘reasonable excuse’ which was available to him and could have justified his refusal to provide the specimen requested”.

L’accusé, Seewoosagur Jugessur, avait été trouvé coupable sous deux charges soit (a) refusing to give specimen of blood for a laboratory test, et (b) driving motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit. Il avait été testé positif lors des tests primaires à l’alchol le 21 avril 2012 à 00h30 à la rue Moka par le constable PC Joyeuse. Conduit au poste de police, il avait refusé de donner son sang et urine pour des testes secondaires.

En Cour de district, après entendu les différentes versions, le magistrat lui avait infligé une amende de Rs 5 000 sur le premier charge et une autre amende de Rs 11 000 et une suspension de licence pour huit mois sous le deuxième charge. Il avait fait appel contre cette sentence. Pour soutenir sa défense, les hommes de loi de Seewoosagur Jugessur, Mes G. Ramsarran-Kandhai et A.Khandai, se sont basés sur deux points importants pour défendre leur client.

Primo “the Learned Magistrate wrongly concluded that the prosecution has proven its case under Count I of the Information since it is obvious that the appropriate warning under section 123H(5) of the Road Traffic Act was not properly given to the Appellant” et secundo “the Learned Magistrate’s findings under Count III of the Information are unsafe and cannot be said to have been proven beyond reasonable doubt since it is obvious that the appropriate warnings under section 123H(5) and that under section 123H(6)(a) of the Road Traffic Act were not property given to the Appellant.”

Le constable Joyeuse a réfuté le point avancé en Cour de district par le chauffeur à l’effet qu’il avait expliqué la raison motivant son refus pour un test sanguin. Seewoosagur Jugessur maintient avoir expliqué qu’il ne peut pas voir le sang après une agression subie en 2006. Ce qui a été confirmée par le Dr Jaggarnath, qui a indiqué en Cour, que S.Jugessur “suffers from post- trauma anxiety and has a fear of blood, the sight of which can cause him to faint.”

Si le magistrat en Cour de district avait conclu que le constable Joyeuse “had warned Accused of all his constitutional rights and also of how he was committing another offence when he disagreed to give the specimen of his blood and urine”, les juges P.Fekna et AD Narain sont d’un avis contraire.
“It is clear from the evidence on record and the judgment that both PC Joyeuse and the learned Magistrate were oblivious to the fact that the warning to be given under section 123H(5) of the Road Traffic Act has to be to the effect that a failure, without any excuse, to provide a specimen for a laboratory test in pursuance of section 123H of the Road Traffic Act may render the person requested liable to prosecution and may be used against him in evidence if he is prosecuted for an offence under section 123D or 123F of the Road Traffic Act” écrit les juges.

La section de la loi se lit d’ailleurs comme suit: “In a prosecution under section 123D or 123F of this Act, a refusal without reasonable excuse by a person to submit himself to a breath test or to give a specimen of his blood or specimens of his urine when required to do so in pursuance of this section shall be held against him as prima facie evidence that at the material time the proportion of alcohol in his blood exceeded the prescribed limits.”

Pour ‘cet oubli’ de faire connaître à l’accusé ses droits et le risque qu’il encourt pour un refus, la Cour a donné gain de cause à Seewoosagur Jugessur, Les juges sont arrivés à la conclusion que: “We find that it cannot be said for the purposes of count 1 and section 123H(4) of the Road Traffic Act that the appellant was given the appropriate warning under section 123H(5) of the Road Traffic Act or given an opportunity to put across a ‘reasonable excuse’ which was available to him and could have justified his refusal to provide the specimen requested (see Dauhajee v The State [2015 SCJ 433]), the more so as the appellant in this case seemed to have a medical reason for objecting to providing a specimen of blood for analysis.”

To Top