HKSAR v. NG HOK HUNG

HCMA 989/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 989 OF 2003

(ON APPEAL FROM STS 5067/2003)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant was charged with one charge of cyclist disobeying traffic sign, the sign being cycling restriction, contrary to the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations.

2. The prosecution's case was that this traffic sign was erected on a post about 7 feet from the ground on the right hand side of the entrance to a subway. The sign indicated that cycling was prohibited beyond that sign and that all cyclists must dismount. The prosecution evidence was that the Appellant continued riding his bicycle into the subway and he was stopped by a police officer.

3. The Appellant elected to give evidence and he said he did not see the sign because if the sign had been placed lower he would have seen it and therefore this was his reasonable excuse.

4. The learned Magistrate found that the Appellant's excuse was not a reasonable one because the prosecution evidence had proved that the sign was easily visible to anyone approaching it and was not concealed by anything. In those circumstances, the learned Magistrate convicted the Appellant.

5. The Appellant on appeal submitted that the learned Magistrate had not gone into detail about why he was convicted. He wished to furnish further evidence about why the sign was not clear. I did not allow him to do so and I informed the Appellant that an appeal is not a retrial. The Appellant also complained that the court did not ask him about his financial situation before fining him.

6. This is not an appeal against sentence and so I am only dealing with the appeal against conviction. As to whether the learned Magistrate did give reasons for his conviction, that is fully covered in the learned Magistrate's Statement of Findings.

7. It is a simple case, I am satisfied that on the evidence before him the learned Magistrate properly convicted the Appellant in this case. I see therefore no grounds for interfering with the learned Magistrate's decision. So the appeal is dismissed.