WU WAI SUN v. HKSAR

FAMC No. 7 of 2001

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 7 OF 2001 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM HCMA NO. 899 OF 2000)

_______________

_________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

_________________________

Mr Justice Chan PJ :

1. The applicant is a taxi driver. He was convicted after trial of careless driving and was fined $1,300. The case against him was that his taxi

was stopped during a road block. He was directed by a police officer to drive to a roadside area for inspection. He drove to that area at about 25 kph. It was said that he drove so close to a police inspector, about 2 to 3 metres, that the inspector had to jump away in order to avoid a collision. His left hand made a slight contact with the taxi but he suffered no injury.

2. The applicant accepted in evidence that he drove his taxi to that inspection area and stopped beside the police inspector. He denied that he was careless.

3. The issues before the court were: first, what was the speed of the taxi? Second, whether the applicant had paid any attention to the condition on the road, including the presence and the position of the police inspector? Third, whether he drove in such a manner as to cause the inspector to jump aside?

4. The applicant raised 28 points which had all been raised and rejected in the courts below. He repeats them now before this Committee. These points relate to three matters generally. First, it was an unfair prosecution in that the police had failed to comply with certain procedures before prosecuting him. Secondly, it was an unfair trial in that the magistrate had wrongly permitted the witnesses to give inconsistent evidence. Thirdly, the verdict was unfair in that the magistrate had wrongly assessed the evidence.

5. The applicant had conducted a lengthy and detailed cross-examination of each of the prosecution witnesses. The magistrate had meticulously considered all the points raised. He accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and rejected the applicant's evidence. He found that the applicant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of careless driving. The appeal judge had also carefully considered all the points raised by the applicant. The points raised do not involve any point of law of great general or public importance. Nor can we see any substantial and grave injustice in this case.

6. For these reasons, we refuse leave to appeal.