THE QUEEN v. LEE YUK-FAI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 976 OF 1989.

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

BETWEEN

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant was convicted of careless driving contrary to section 38(1) of the toad Traffic ordinance, and fined $350.00.

2. The general grounds of appeal were that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence and that he was not guilty of this offence.

3. On 4th October, 1989 I dismissed the appeal and said that I would give my reasons later. This I now do.

4. The facts were straight forward. A jeep driven by a lady driver, P.W.1, with P.W.2 as a passenger, had stopped at the traffic lights at a road junction in Cameron Road, intending to turn left into Carnarvon Road. There was no vehicle in the lane to her right but as the lights changed to green, she saw a goods vehicle coming from behind. She moved into the junction going left, so did the goods vehicle on her right. The latter collided with the jeep as both vehicles were entering Carnarvon Road. According to P.W.2, the goods vehicle came from the rear right side and was very close to the jeep. Then, the metal part of the rear of the goods vehicle collided with the jeep.

5. Under cross-examination, P.W.1 said that, as she was turning into the inner lane had she turned more to the left, she would have mounted the pavement. She agreed that there was a fire engine in the same lane, but said that it was some distance from the corner.

6. The appellant's version was that the traffic lights changed to green when he was about 7 feet from them and, reducing his speed from the previous 25 k.m.p., he turned left into Carnarvon Road, intending to go into the third lane. He said that as his vehicle was 18 feet long, he turned by taking the right side lane as the vehicle required a "longer space". He claimed that he saw P.W.1's car in his mirror in the left lane as he was turning and was about 3 feet from the kerb.

7. Under cross-examination, he admitted that he had seen the jeep stationary at the traffic lights and he overtook it to turn left. He said that he tried to avoid the jeep and blamed P.W.1 for colliding with his vehicle.

8. The learned trial magistrate accepted the evidence of P.W.1 as truthful and found as a fact that the appellant had turned too much to the left and gone into the path of the jeep. This was a matter of credibility for the trial magistrate and I do not think that his findings can be faulted on the evidence which he accepted. The appellant who did not stop once the traffic lights changed had, on his own admission, seen the jeep also turning left and it was his duty to manoeuvre the left turn in such a way that it was in the circumstances safe to other road users like P.W.1, also turning left at the same time.

9. I find that the decision of the trial magistrate was just and proper on the evidence which he accepted.

10. This appeal was accordingly dismissed.