Haynes v Commissioner of Police

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Williams, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 30 May 1988
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)
• Docket Number: No. 42 of 1987
• Date: 30 May 1988

Divisional Court

Williams, C.J.; Husbands, J.

No. 42 of 1987

Haynes

and

Commissioner of Police

Mr. L. Haynes for the Appellant.

Mr. E.G. Husbands for the Respondent.

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Driving without due care and attention — Driving without reasonable consideration for other users of the road — Appeal dismissed

Williams, C.J.

1 The appellant Gordon Haynes was tried by the Chief Magistrate on two informations in which he was charged with driving without due care and attention and driving without reasonable consideration for other persons sing the road. The charges arose out of the appellant's driving of the car S. 2121 on Charles Rowe Bridge Road on October 8, 1985.

2 After a plea of not guilty to both informations, evidence was led or the informant and Ferdinand Trotman testified that he was driving his vehicle along Salters Main Road in St. George near the junction with Charles Rowe Bridge. He was going towards Rowans and he used his left indicator to how, in his words, that he “was going straight up main as it had a slight left curve”.

3 To understand the point that has arisen in this case the situation if the roads at the junction has to be understood. To Trotman's immediate left was the road to Lower Estate and had Trotman wanted to proceed along his road, he would have had to turn sharply to the left. Further on was he road to Rowans which curved to the left and it was on this road that Trotman intended to proceed. To Trotman's right was the road to St. George's Church and had Trotman wished to proceed on this road he would have had to make a right turn. The appellant was approaching the junction from the direction of St. George's Church and it is his case that he exercised all due care and consideration for others relying as he was on Trotman's signal and believing that Trotman was turning left into the road leading to Lower Estate. As it happened he, the appellant, came out of the minor road, turned right to go on the road to Rowans and found himself in collision with Trotman's vehicle. The learned Magistrate dealt with this contention in the following manner:

“The Court did not accept this contention. It concluded that the accused coming out of a minor road must only do so when he is absolutely certain that it is safe to do so and, in this case, that Trotman was in fact going to execute the turn into Lower Estate Road.

Trotman's explanation seemed to have some...