R. v. WONG KAM HOI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL No.1229 of 1996

______________

______________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1. The appellant was convicted on 10th September 1996 after trial of being the registered owner of a motor vehicle which was parked on a pavement, being the pavement outside the Hong Kong Central Hospital, on 11th April 1996 in Lower Albert Road, Central, Hong Kong in contravention of the Parking Regulations. The appellant admitted that on that day in the afternoon at about 3:45, he drove to the place where the contravention occurred, that he entered the hospital, and on return to the car shortly afterward found the fixed penalty ticket, which is the notification to him of this offence, on the window screen of his car. He admitted committing the offence with which he was charged at about 3:45 that afternoon and to being notified of it by the fixed penalty ticket.

2. On the face of the fixed penalty ticket and in his evidence before the magistrate, the traffic warden who wrote the ticket alleged that the ticket was issued that 3:35 pm some ten minutes before the time alleged by the appellant and by a witness who had accompanied the appellant at the time and who also gave evidence. The issue is whether the error of ten minutes, if the time testified to by the appellant and his witness is accepted, creates a doubt in respect of the contravention of the offence which warrants the quashing of the conviction.

3. The appellant admitted the commission of the offence at the place and ten minutes after the time alleged by the traffic warden. In respect of parking offences, it is clear that the place where the offence occurs is a material matter and an error concerning "place" can be a matter upon which a doubt can be founded. However, I do not consider that the precise time of the offence is a matter upon which an acquittal can be found in the circumstances. Given the admission of the appellant, and the general timing of both his evidence and that of the traffic warden, in my view, a discrepancy of ten minutes does not vitiate the conviction.

4. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.