THE QUEEN v. LAM LUNG SING

BETWEEN:

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant appeals against his conviction for the offence of crossing a continuous double white line contrary to Reg. 11(1) of the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations, made under the Road Traffic ordinance, Cap.374.

2. The appellant pleaded not guilty and the first prosecution witness, a police officer("P. W.1"), was called. He gave evidence that he saw the appellant's taxi travelling along Middle Road from west to east and driving up to the pavement making a U-turn on the pavement, crossing the double white line towards Nathan Road.

3. At the conclusion of P.W.1's evidence, the magistrate asked the appellant whether he agreed that he had crossed the continuous double white line The appellant agreed that he did but denied that he had gone onto the pavement.

4. The magistrate then commented -

 

"What you have just said amounts to an admission of the offence - is it correct that your taxi DE9105 crossed the continuous double white lines in Middle Road on 13th April 1986 at 10.06 a.m.?

 

Defendant: Yes.

 

Bench: On that statement, do you wish to do anything about your plea? - the facts you have admitted amount to the charge.

 

Defendant: I plead 'Guilty'."

5. The appellant before me contended that he had driven his taxi from a car park onto the road and had then, wishing to go to the right, crossed the double white line in order to do so.

6. He pointed out that by Reg. 11(3) of the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations, this was one of the defences which is open to a driver.

7. He contended that he had been misled by the magistrate into thinking that the mere crossing of a double white line was conclusive of guilt. No doubt the magistrate intended to be helpful, but there is a danger, to my mind, that he overlooked the provisions of Reg. 11(3) and misled both himself and the defendant as to the absolute nature of the action of crossing a double white line.

8. I therefore felt that the conviction had been unsafe, allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial before another magistrate.