HKSAR v. MOK CHE HUNG

HCMA 917/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 917 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM SPS 4116/2000)

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant appeals against his conviction on a charge of Careless Driving. He was represented at trial in the Magistracy and he appeared in person on his appeal.

2. The prosecution's case was that the Appellant pulled his bus out from the 1st lane of Wuhu Street into the lane of a taxi driver who was travelling along the middle lane. The taxi driver tried to swerve to the right to avoid a collision but the rear of his taxi was hit by the bus.

3. The taxi driver had two passengers in the back seat, a woman and her mother. The woman gave evidence that she was sitting on the left side of the rear passenger seat and confirmed that she saw the bus cut into the lane of the taxi from the left side.

4. The Appellant gave evidence that the taxi had been a little bit in front of the bus and that it cut back in to the 2nd lane. When cutting into the 2nd lane, the taxi was very close to the bus. Although the Appellant immediately stopped his bus, the taxi collided with the offside front part of the bus. Police investigated the accident but only after the vehicles had stopped.

5. Today the Appellant reiterated the case he put before the Magistrate. He said the sketch prepared by the taxi driver, Exhibit P. 3 and a sketch prepared by the police officer, Exhibit P. 4 are very different and do not support the prosecution case.

6. The Magistrate accepted Exhibit P. 3 as showing where the taxi driver said the two vehicles came into contact and accepted Exhibit P. 4 as showing the positions of the vehicles when they finally stopped, which was the position they were in when the police arrived.

7. The Magistrate noted that there was inconsistency between Exhibit P. 3 and some of the evidence of the first witness, the taxi driver, but did not find this inconsistency was material. The Magistrate relied in particular on the evidence of the passenger whom he treated as an independent witness.

8. Having considered all the evidence, the Magistrate found that the manner of driving of the Appellant constituted a material departure from that of a reasonable, competent and prudent driver and convicted him of careless driving.

9. I am satisfied the Magistrate did not err in concluding that the Appellant drove carelessly. The Magistrate had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses. I can find no error in the Statement of Findings. This appeal against conviction is dismissed.