S v SKEAL 1989 (3) ZLR 253 (S)

Flynote

Criminal law — Road Traffic Act 1976 — s 46(1) — driving under influence of liquor — evidence necessary — whether medical evidence essential.

Headnote

On a charge of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor to such an extent as to be unable to have proper control of the vehicle, the State must show that the accused was drunk and incapable, not merely that he had drunk intoxicating liquor. It must prove that the skill and judgment normally required of a driver in the manipulation of a vehicle were diminished or impaired as a result of the consumption of intoxicating liquor.

There is no requirement that, wherever a person is tried on a charge of contravening s 46(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1976, medical evidence must be led to prove beyond doubt a contravention of the section. The failure to adduce medical evidence is only likely to be fatal where the other evidence led is insufficient to prove that the accused was intoxicated and that his skill and judgment were impaired. However, the observations of credible and reliable laymen may often be adequate to establish the guilt of the accused. The more gross and manifest the physical manifestations of drunkenness are, the more readily may medical evidence be dispensed with. Conversely, if the physical manifestations are equivocal, the greater would be the need for medical evidence. In either case, though, the witness must indicate the grounds on which he bases his opinion regarding the sobriety of the accused.