THE QUEEN v. LAU TAI-CHIM

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an appeal against a conviction for failure to comply with traffic signals contrary to Regulation 18 of the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations, Cap. 374.

2. The defendant was, according to the evidence of the first prosecution witness ("P.W.1")  driving along Queen's Road West in a westerly direction in the early evening of 29th April. The police officer was on a motor cycle patrol and found himself in the centre of three lanes behind a private car driven by the defendant. According to P.W.1's evidence, the defendant drove his car through two sets of traffic lights, both of which had turned to red before the defendant drove through.

3. The defendant gave evidence that the first set of lights, was still green when he passed through it, that the second set of lights, at the junction between Queen's Road West and Queen Street, was at amber as he reached it and that he therefore went through it in order not to block the entry of traffic from Queen Street into Queen's Road West.

4. It was the task of the magistrate to choose between the two versions of events, that given by P.W.1 and that given by the defendant. As he was entitled to do, having observed both witnesses, the magistrate preferred the evidence of P.W.1, which, if believed, clearly established that the defendant drove through two sets of lights when they were red against him.

5. Although the magistrate was entitled to reach this conclusion 1 think that some of the language in which he expressed his reasons and his conclusion was unnecessarily strong. It must be remembered that there was a gap of six months between the date of the incident and the date of the trial and that it is all too easy for witnesses' recollection of something which happened so long ago to be inaccurate.

6. In preferring the evidence of the police officer, the magistrate need not have found, as he did, that the defendant was deliberately making up his evidence as he went along. Nor was it fair to criticize him for the questions put by his counsel.

7. Nevertheless, there are no grounds on which I could properly interfere with the magistrate's finding of fact, which is justified by the evidence of the police officer.

8. I must, therefore, dismiss the appeal against conviction.

9. So far as sentence is concerned, a fine of $1,000 for this offence is well above the normal tariff and it may be that the magistrate was influenced, to some extent, by a degree of irritation with the manner in which defendant's counsel presented his case.

10. Mr. Leclaire for the Crown very properly suggested that if the defendant cared to apply for leave to appeal out of time against sentence he would support it. The defendant did so and I granted leave. I think that a proper fine is one of $400, rather than $1,000, and the appeal against sentence succeeds to that extent.