Police lose traffic accident file (updated with police comment)

A police file relating to a traffic accident, after which a Sri Lankan woman sued a Greek Cypriot woman for damages, has been lost, the Nicosia district court heard, though compensation was paid.

The case concerns an accident dating back to October 2007, in which a Greek Cypriot woman tried to drive onto Tseri Avenue in Nicosia from an ‘unofficial’ dirt road, resulting in a crash with a moped driven by a Sri Lankan man, with his 30-year-old wife riding pillion.

The collision left the Sri Lankan woman with serious leg injuries, for which she sued the driver who caused the accident.

During the lawsuit hearings, the court heard that the lost file contained a sketch depicting the scene of the accident, prepared by the traffic policeman who responded to the accident call.

But after the file could not be found, a new sketch was prepared.

“The sketch is based on my findings when I arrived at the scene, and testimony from the three individuals involved in the accident,” the officer told the court.

“This isn’t the sketch that was shown to the drivers at the time. I had prepared a draft design, which the two drivers had signed.”

Asked whether he had recorded the visibility parameters of the accident, the officer, testifying in court as a witness, said he always did.

“However, the file has unfortunately been lost,” he replied.

From memory, the officer told the court that the accident occurred during peak-traffic time – 7:15am – in heavy traffic, but could not remember whether eyewitnesses were at the scene.

He also said he could not recall whether the defendant had claimed that the moped had been overtaking a series of vehicles at the time of the accident, nor whether the dirt road was at a lower altitude relative to the avenue, which “might have impaired visibility”.

In its ruling, the court recorded the “good impression” the witness made, but noted that “his testimony presented gaps owing mainly to the fact that the criminal file relating to the accident was lost, resulting in his inability to freshen up his memory”.

“Therefore, his help to the court has been limited,” the ruling said.

Although the driver of the car admitted to having caused the accident, the court judged that she had not been driving negligently, given the evidence before it.

“I place no weight on the fact that she admitted to negligent driving,” the judge said.

“As has been established by precedent, the evidentiary value of admitting guilt in a criminal case must be assessed in relation to the evidence backing the charge.”

The fact that the driver entered the avenue from an unregistered road does not constitute negligence in itself.

“It is not the defendant’s decision to enter the avenue from a dirt road that caused the accident,” the court said.

“The cause of the accident, in my judgement, is the lack of observation and alertness by the moped’s driver, and his failure to reduce speed or manoeuvre to avert the collision, despite the fact that he had the time and space to do so.”

As a result, there can be no other ruling than to reject the lawsuit, the judge said.

According to the ruling, a €30,000 settlement was agreed in 2014, and the plaintiff withdrew all claims for damages. “Therefore, that leaves the question of liability,” the court said.

Later on Friday, police said the file was not missing but it was destroyed in line with procedures. Spokesman Andreas Angelides said case files regarding traffic accidents were destroyed five years after the incident unless there was notification that civil proceedings had been launched. Those concerning fatal accidents were destroyed after 10 years.

In the case in questions “there was no letter from the lawyers to keep the file,” he said. “Police directives were observed and the file was destroyed because the accident happened in 2007.”