Inferior Court
Appeal No. 13 of 1981
17th March 1982.
Alcantara, J.

Mr. G.C. Ghandi, for the Appellant
The Respondent in person

Inferior Court Appeal - Appeal by Prosecution against decision of magistrate dismissing charges of careless driving and negligent harm - Respondent involved in a collision with parked vehicle - Magistrate finding as a fact that occupants of parked vehicle did not park properly off the road - As a result magistrate dismissing the charges - Whether magistrate misdirected himself - Proof beyond a reasonable doubt applicable in criminal cases - Appeal dismissed.

J U D G M E N T

The Respondent is Egbert August. On the night of the 9th day of September 1980 he was involved in a motor car collision. He collided into a parked car at Mile 16 near Hatteville. Prima facie that is evidence of careless driving and/or negligence. He was prosecuted and his case was dealt by a learned Magistrate for the Belize Judicial District.

The learned Magistrate heard the evidence of the occupants of the parked car and of a police officer. After hearing and seeing them in the witness-box he came to the conclusion that they (the occupants of the car) were not witnesses of truth and rejected their evidence. He did not accept that they had parked properly off the road and that they had left the parking lights of the car on. The occupants were returning to Belize City after a five-day fishing expedition in Glover's Reef off Stann Creek and had stopped to have a sleep before continuing with their journey. The learned Magistrate accepted the evidence of the Respondent and dismissed the summonses against him, one for careless driving and three for negligent harm caused to three of the occupants of the car.

The prosecution has appealed from the learned Magistrate's decision. The grounds of appeal are as follows:

1. The decision was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence.

2. The decision was based on a wrong principle.

A number of authorities have been quoted to me by counsel for the Appellant but I do not consider it necessary in this particular case to deal with them as the issue before me is whether the learned Magistrate misdirected himself or not.

I have reviewed the evidence and cannot say that the learned Magistrate misdirected himself either as to the law or as to facts. It might well be that I or some other person adjudicating might have arrived at a different decision. That is not enough. The Inferior Court had to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty not just that there was a prima facie case against him, however strong it might have appeared to be. On the evidence before the learned Magistrate it was possible for him to arrive at the decision he arrived at.

Consequently I uphold his findings and dismiss this appeal.

----------OO---------