The appellant was convicted of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of drink, contrary to s. 198 (1) of the Roads and Road Traffic Act, Cap. 766. The appellant appealed against his conviction and his grounds of appeal, inter alia, were as follows: (a) the expert medical evidence led was inadmissible as the appellant had not been arrested for the offence before being subjected to a medical examination, which is 30 contrary to s. 3 of Act No. 42 of 1971 which amended the Roads and Road Traffic Act, Cap. 766; (b) in the absence of medical evidence, the testimony of P.W.3 is insufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt as it is unsupported and (c) the prosecution did not produce available evidence to corroborate the testimony of P.W.3, 35 which was available to the prosecution, and it must therefore be assumed that such evidence was in fact favourable to the appellant.
Held, dismissing the appeal:
(i) That the elements of arrest were physical restraint and a sufficiently stated reason for such restraint and there was nothing to prevent a person arrested from being re-arrested.
(ii) That there was no set formula to use on arrest and the purpose behind the elements of a valid arrest is to ensure that a person arrested without a warrant, and therefore deprived of his freedom of movement, must know why he is being so deprived.
(iii) That the evidence of a non-medical witness is admissible to show whether the appellant had or had not taken alcohol and how, or in what manner, he drove or conducted himself at the material time, but not as to whether in the witness's opinion he was fit to drive; and that it is for the court to draw an inference as to whether an accused person was fit to drive from that evidence and, accordingly, in the absence of medical evidence, a court could properly come to the conclusion that an accused person had consumed alcohol to such an extent as being incapable of having proper control of his vehicle.
(iv) That although there was no obligation on the part of the prosecution to produce every possible witness at a trial, it was of paramount importance that the conduct of a trial must in all circumstances be fair, and, if evidence was not available due to insufficient investigation, or a statement has not been taken from a vital witness who subsequently becomes unavailable, then these were matters which might cause serious doubt upon the fairness of the trial to such an extent that it would be unsafe to convict.
