A collision occurred, which negligently caused serious injury to the passenger's health.

On May 26, 2020, the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Acting Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the case of K. By the verdict of the Al-Farabi District Court of Shymkent on October 4, 2019, K. was found innocent and acquitted under part 2 of Article 345 of the Criminal Code for the absence of elements of a criminal offense in her actions. Civil claims of the victim N. and the civil plaintiff Sh. left without satisfaction. She was accused of driving a Toyota Higlander car on February 25, 2019 in the city of Shymkent, violating the requirements of paragraph 13 of Section 9 of the traffic regulations, entering the intersection of Baitursynov and Zheltoksan streets at a traffic light, and not giving way to a Hsu Tiburon car driven by Sh., she collided., which negligently caused serious harm to the health of the passenger of the Hyundai Tiburon car, victim N. By the decision of the judicial board for Criminal Cases of the Shymkent City Court dated November 26, 2019, the verdict and the private decision of the court of first instance remained unchanged. During the pre-trial investigation, a video recording was taken from the DVR installed in K.'s car, a Toyota Higlander, onto a CD. According to the conclusion of the forensic phototechnical examination dated April 17, 2019 No. 1164, the Toyota Higlander car was driven by K. in the presented video, it is fixed on the recording frames and crosses the stop line along Zheltoksan Street at the permissive "green" signal of the traffic light object. The Hong Kong Tiburon car driven by Sh. in accordance with the information on the operating mode of the traffic light object, it drives to the intersection of Zheltoksan and Baytursinova streets at the forbidding "red" signal of the traffic light object. The court was reasonably critical of the testimony of witness Sh. and victim N. that their car drove into the specified intersection at a "green" traffic light, since their testimony is not supported by any objective evidence. Moreover, Sh. testified that they were moving in a traffic jam.

A collision occurred, which negligently caused serious injury to the passenger's health.

According to the requirements of paragraph 13.2 of the traffic regulations, it is prohibited to enter an intersection and cross carriageways if a traffic jam has formed that will force the driver to stop, creating an obstacle to the movement of vehicles in the transverse direction. In this traffic situation, Sh. she was obliged to assess the situation, the position of the traffic lights, where the time of the permissive "green" traffic light ends and the prohibiting signals light up, the number of cars standing in a traffic jam, the distance required to overcome the intersection, which is more than 30 meters, and, having foreseen the consequences, take measures to stop the car in front of the stop line, as this requires traffic regulations. Instead, she drove to the intersection, to the "red" forbidding signal, which subsequently led to an accident. The court has reliably established that Sh. when moving forward, I saw a Toyota Higlander car moving in the transverse direction. According to paragraph 10.1 of the traffic Regulations, if there is an obstacle and (or) a danger to traffic that the driver is able to detect, he takes measures to reduce speed until the vehicle stops or safely detour around the obstacle for other road users. However, Sh. before the collision of the cars, not only did she not take any measures to prevent a collision of cars, but also, without slowing down, continued moving forward, thoughtlessly believing that K. it will give her the opportunity to complete the maneuver of passing the intersection, as the drivers of other cars standing to her left let her pass. By the verdict of the Khromtau district Court of the Aktobe region dated January 25, 2019, B. was sentenced under part 1 of Article 34 of the Criminal Code to community service for a period of 200 hours with deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for a period of 3 years. Based on Article 60 of the Criminal Code, according to the totality of sentences, the unserved part of the additional punishment in the form of 2 years of deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle was partially attached to the previous sentence of the Khromtau district court dated May 23, 2016, and finally the punishment was imposed in the form of community service for a period of 200 hours with deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for a period of 5 years old.

By the verdict of the court, B. was found guilty of the fact that, being a person who had previously been deprived of the right to drive vehicles, he again drove a vehicle under the influence of drugs. The court incorrectly determined the term of additional punishment for B.. According to article 73 of the Criminal Code, when a penalty is imposed in the form of deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities as an additional punishment to arrest or imprisonment, it applies to the entire duration of serving the main types of punishments, but the term is calculated from the date of serving the arrest, imprisonment and registration with the probation service. In the case of the appointment of this type of punishment as an additional to other basic types of punishment, as well as a postponement of serving the sentence or a suspended sentence, its term is calculated from the date of entry into force of the sentence. The previous sentence against B., dated May 23, 2016, entered into force on June 8, 2016, and the term of serving the additional sentence should be calculated from that day. At the time of the commission of the last offense, B. had actually served 2 years, 5 months, and 10 days of the additional sentence, and the unserved part of it was 6 months. In this regard, the term of the additional punishment imposed on him should not exceed 3 years and 6 months. The verdict of the court regarding the appointment of B. the main punishment in the form of community service for a period of 200 hours was also changed. According to part 2 of Article 6 of the Criminal Code, a law that eliminates the criminality or punishability of an act, mitigates responsibility or punishment, or otherwise improves the situation of a person who committed a criminal offense is retroactive, that is, it applies to persons who committed the relevant act before the introduction of such a law, including persons serving a sentence or who have served punishment, but with a criminal record. By a decision dated January 21, 2020, the Cassation Board of the Supreme Court satisfied the submission of the Chairman of the Supreme Court and changed the verdict. According to part 1 of Article 346 of the Criminal Code, B. reduced the term of the main sentence to 100 hours and additional punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle to 3 years and 6 months. The rest of the verdict was left unchanged. 

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information,  please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases