THE QUEEN v. WU PO-CHOW

________________________________

-----------------------

J U D G M E N T

-----------------------

1. The appellant was charged with damaging a taxi intending to cause such damage or being reckless as to whether the taxi would be damaged.

2. PW1 (a taxi driver) testified that he was driving at about 70 m.p.h. When his taxi was about 3 to 4 feet away from a railing, he noticed the appellant was very near his taxi, about 1 to 2 feet away so he sounded his horn and applied the brakes. He drove past the appellant. The appellant was standing unsteadily as he put it. The driver heard a noise while passing the appellant. At first he thought he had bumped into the appellant, then he saw the appellant stepping back. He said that on second thoughts that if he had bumped into the appellant, the appellant would have been flung into the air so he stopped and got out. There was a scratch on his taxi. He asked the appellant why he had kicked his taxi and the appellant said something which he could not understand. There is no other evidence of the alleged kick.

3. The appellant testified, in effect, that in trying to get out of the way of the taxi which was going fast, he stepped back and his foot must have involuntarily kicked into the taxi.

4. Counsel for the Crown did not oppose the appeal.

5. The appeal is allowed. The conviction quashed and the fine set aside.