By Linny Folau

An appeal by Kepueli Mafi, against his conviction on dangerous driving causing the death of ‘Ahotau Taufu’i, was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, who found that his driving speed and manner was indeed dangerous when he slept on the wheel.

The appellant who received four and a half years imprisonment with the final year suspended on conditions did not appeal against his sentence nor his three year disqualification from driving.

A judgment by Justices Randerson, Harrison and Dalton on 20 November stated that the primary ground of appeal, as originally framed by the appellant’s counsel, Mr. Edwards was that the Crown had failed to prove that Mr. Mafi’s driving was the sole cause of the victim’s death. This was on the basis that Justice Cooper’s finding that Mr. Taufu'i's actions did not contribute to his own death as it was not supported by evidence.

The Appeal judges stated that Mr. Edwards’ challenges to the judge's factual findings was to establish that Mr. Taufu'i's actions immediately before the accident were such as to raise a reasonable doubt that the speed and manner of Mr. Mafi's driving was dangerous, the two central components of the first element of the charge.

“We are satisfied that Mr. Edwards' submission is answered by two of the judge's factual findings, which we are satisfied were well founded on the evidence.” the Appeal Court judgement stated.

In argument, Mr. Edwards' proposed that the evidence about the victim’s conduct immediately before the fatal accident raised a reasonable doubt about whether Mr. Mafi was driving at a speed and in a manner which was dangerous in the circumstances.                 

Offence

The offence occurred at about 4.00am on 22 November 2022, when Mr. Mafi was driving his motor vehicle on Taufa’ahau Road in an easterly direction. He was alone in the car and was on his way home after earlier being with relatives caring for the children of his wife's ill sister.

At around the same time Mr.Taufu'i was walking west on the left-hand side of the same road near Nualei. He was on his way home having earlier argued with his father about being drunk.

The appellant fell asleep while driving his vehicle. He had not seen Mr.Taufu'i. He was awoken by a feeling that his car had hit something. In fact his vehicle had struck the victim but he did not stop to check and drove on for some distance.

Several witnesses found Mr.Taufu'i lying face down in the road and he was taken to hospital. However, the victim’s injuries were too severe and he died of massive blood loss within a couple of hours.

One witness, who noted part of the number plate of the accused's vehicle, saw him speeding away from the scene.

Medical evidence confirmed that the victim died from major blood loss and the injuries were consistent with a "high energy, high speed" impact.

The Appeal Court noted thati the manner of Mr. Mafi's driving was of itself dangerous in circumstances where he had been awake for many hours before getting into his vehicle; he continued to drive while feeling himself dozing off at the wheel; and it was dark and the road was poorly lit, requiring him to keep a careful lookout.

“He posed a real danger to the public while driving in that condition and ought to have pulled over and stopped when he realized this. Mr.Taufu'i's actions or omissions were immaterial to this finding and Mr. Edwards does not contest this."

Mr. Edwards had also submitted that the doctor was not qualified to give evidence on speed.

“The judge was entitled to draw the inference from her evidence that the speed at which Mr. Mafi was driving must have been considerable to cause the degree of injuries suffered by Mr. Taufu'i and when coupled with the manner of Mr. Mafi's driving, his first finding  posed a danger to the public in all the circumstances. Mr.Taufu'i's conduct or behaviour was irrelevant to this finding also.

“To the extent that it might have had some possible relevance, we record our satisfaction that the judge had an adequate evidential basis for his factual finding that Mr. Taufu'i was standing when he was struck and that he was struck from behind.”

“Moreover, Mr. Edwards' complaint there were no eyewitnesses to the accident, and nobody can say with certainty what happened. That is true of all circumstantial cases.

“Judges must resort to the conventional method of drawing inferences from proven facts. The judge was entitled to rely on Dr Tupou's evidence.”

The Appeal judges found they were not satisfied that Mr. Mafi had made out his grounds and dismissed his appeal against conviction.