The court
emphasised the need for the penalty to align with public safety priorities and
adhere strictly to legal standards, ensuring both justice and deterrence are
effectively served.
Gerald
Mangwenyama was convicted of reckless driving under Section 53(2) of the Road
Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11].
He had pleaded
guilty to driving a Honda Fit against oncoming traffic while rushing to work.
The trial court
had fined Mangwenyama US$450 or four months in prison.
Additionally,
he was prohibited from driving Class 4 vehicles for six months and ordered to
surrender his licence for endorsement.
Justice Esther
Muremba, presiding over the criminal review, upheld the fine and imprisonment
term but raised concerns about the narrow scope of the driving prohibition.
The judge
questioned why the prohibition was limited to Class 4 vehicles, leaving
Mangwenyama free to drive vehicles in Class 2, Class 5, and motorcycles in
Class 3. She noted that this decision was inconsistent with the legislative
intent of ensuring road safety through comprehensive driving restrictions.
“Reckless
driving is a serious offence that affects road safety, regardless of vehicle
type,” Justice Muremba stated in her judgment.
“The purpose of
imposing driving prohibitions is to deter further reckless behaviour and ensure
responsible driving across all categories of vehicles. Allowing an offender to
continue driving larger vehicles or motorcycles undermines public safety and the
deterrent effect of the sentence.”
The court
reviewed Sections 53(4) and 65 of the Road Traffic Act, which govern driving
prohibitions following a conviction.
Section 65(1)
establishes that prohibitions should generally extend to all vehicle classes
unless the court provides specific, justified exceptions.
Justice Muremba
noted that the trial magistrate failed to explain why the prohibition was
restricted to Class 4 vehicles, describing the omission as a failure to
exercise judicial discretion.
“The reasons
for sentence are silent on this. The trial magistrate did not lay bare their
reasoning process in the exercise of such discretion. The reason or reasons
thereof remained safely stored in the mind of the trial magistrate,” Justice
Muremba observed.
The court
further highlighted the risks posed by allowing Mangwenyama to continue driving
large vehicles such as commuter omnibuses and heavy vehicles, which fall under
Classes 1 and 2.
Justice Muremba
emphasised that these vehicles pose even greater risks to public safety due to
their size and passenger capacity.
“The sentencing
judgment should have reflected a careful evaluation of the consequences of
allowing the accused to continue driving other classes of vehicles,” Justice
Muremba stated. “The prohibition decision was not well-considered and requires
corrective action to ensure compliance with legal requirements and public
safety principles.”
Section 65(6)
of the Act permits sentencing corrections within six months of conviction.
Justice Muremba
directed the trial magistrate to issue a notice to Mangwenyama, requiring him
to appear in court and justify why the prohibition should not be extended to
all vehicle classes for six months.
If the
magistrate finds justification for exempting certain vehicle classes, they must
explicitly define these exemptions while ensuring compliance with the law.
The judgment
underscores the need for courts to exercise discretion judiciously and ensure
sentencing decisions align with public safety objectives. Deputy Judge
President, Justice Garainesu Mawadze concurred with the decision. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment