Paki mo Talaha Tausinga was found guilty on two counts that included not helping an injured woman pedestrian following an accident in the Nuku'alofa CBD last year. Although the accused was found to be the driver responsible for this collision, he was acquitted of reckless driving, injuring a female pedestrian, because there was uncertainty about the quality of the

 evidence to prove this serious charge.

Hon Mr Justice Cato in a verdict on June 20 at the Supreme Court, acquitted the accused of reckless driving causing bodily harm to Malia Melesete 'Epalahame, during the accident in the early hours of September 26, 2018 in central Nuku'alofa.

However, he found the accused guilty on failure to render assistance to the injured person in the accident and failure to report the accident to Police.

During trial, it was alleged that the accused had driven in a speed and manner dangerous to the public and did not pay proper care and attention to others on the road. He was said to have been travelling at a high speed on Taufa'ahau Road, which caused his vehicle to hit the complainant, while she was crossing.

The judge was satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that at this time, there was an accident in which the complainant suffered bodily harm, when she was walking either on the Taufa'ahau Road or closely adjacent to it.

The Court heard from the complainant's evidence that she had been drinking with a friend earlier in the evening and had gone in her friend's car to a bar in the CBD. She admitted that she was intoxicated when she later crossed the road from the bar to return to the car.

The complainant thought the road was clear when she and her friend crossed the road. That was the end of her recollection, until she woke up at the hospital. Meanwhile, the complainant's friend in her evidence said, she did not drink and that the vehicle sped up and hit the complaint who was behind her. 

She did not see the actual collision or the car approaching. She turned around when she heard the collision and saw her friend fly up in the air. The car drove off. She did not know how far the complainant was behind her when she reached her car.

The judge was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt from the combination of evidential factors, the accused was the driver responsible for this colliision.

He was identified as leaving an area close to the scene of the collision a little before the time of the collision and was recognised by another person.

Doubt

However, the judge was not satisfied that the high speed said to be present by eyewitnesses was such that it could be said to be excessive or unlawful. 

He could not infer from the evidence heard that the accused had drunk alcohol to excess which must have affected his driving. 

“I am unsure just where the complainant was when the collision took place and if she was close to the parallel car, she would have been close to the road, or indeed in the road where the piece of glass was found according by a Police Officer,” he said.

In addition, her friend did not apparently see where she was at the time of the collision.

He said consequently, he could not say that the accused failed to exercise due care and attention, particularly as reflected in such a serious charge in colliding with her, among other doubts as to the evidence given.

"Overall, I am in a position where faced with a very serious charge requiring clear proof of a high degree of culpability to 
constitute reckless driving. I am in a state of uncertainty about the quality of the

 evidence to prove this serious charge."

The judge then acquitted the accused on the reckless driving charge.