It doesn’t make sense

314 Hits

Dear Editor

Re: Manslaughter charge dismissed 

Something doesn’t sound right about this ruling.

“According to Justice Leiataualesa’s ruling, in order to prove the charge of manslaughter against the accused, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

“That the accused was in charge of or had under his control or operates anything whatever which in the absence of precaution or care may endanger human life; and”

“That the accused had a legal duty to take reasonable precautions against and to use reasonable care to avoid the danger; and”

“That the accused breached that legal duty in that the breach by omission or neglect is a major departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person to whom that legal duty applies in those circumstances; and”

 “The omission or neglect caused the death of the deceased.”

The accused was in charge of operating a vehicle under his control, and the accused did not used reasonable precautionary measures and reasonable care to avoid the danger to human life. The accused breached his legal duty by the absence of reasonable care and precautions given to operating the vehicle under his control caused the man his life.

Q) So who caused the death of the man? 

“The omission or neglect caused the death of the deceased.”

A) The accused.

Q) What precautionary measures and reasonable care the accused should have taken to avoid the loss of human life?

A) The accused should have pulled the vehicle to the side of the road and stop, parked the car and search for the lost object that he was looking for, as the Judge used that evidence from Constable Ioapo to base his ruling on.

Q) Why would any vehicle traveling off the sealed roadway and on the gravel/grass shoulder?

A) Any alert driver who uses precautionary and reasonable care of his legal duty would swerve to the side in an effort to avoid danger and or collision.

Q) Would the bus received damaged without collision? And would someone die without damage to bus?

A) Not without accident, carelessness, omission of duties, ignorant, or intent to harm.

And the so called a New Zealand crash investigations expert with 16 years Police experience and his qualifications include traffic crash investigations for trucks, motorcycles and vehicles. Long description and he could only testified about the bus and not the minivan. I would say trucks and motorcycles are also considered vehicles. I doubt this testimony.

This expert witness probably got paid much money when his testimony could have been given by a kolipopo who uses logic.

It just doesn’t make sense to me.

Segale Manusina

© Samoa Observer 2016

Developed by Samoa Observer in Apia