HKSAR v. MAK SUN KEUNG

1996, NO. MA 1366

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL

_____________

_____________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1. The appellant was found guilty of failing to comply with the traffic lights. He was fined and now appeals against conviction.

2. The Crown's evidence was this. The appellant who drove a taxi did not stop in front of the stop line at the traffic lights which turned red. In fact the appellant moved slowly pass the stop line at about 5 kph and stopped at about one and a half taxi length beyond the stop line.

3. Before the magistrate and before me, the appellant said that he had in fact came to a complete halt and that it was only the front wheel of his vehicle which had gone about half a foot beyond the stop line. The police officer was driving a vehicle and was on his right in the second lane. He pointed at the appellant and told him to pull up by the side of the road. The officer said that since the front wheel of the taxi was outside the stop line, he was treated as contravening the traffic lights.

4. I have considered the evidence and the submission by the appellant, like the magistrate, I do not believe that if the appellant had only gone about half a foot beyond the stop line, the police officer would have taken the trouble of stopping him. It is not disputed that the appellant had come to a complete halt. He accepted that he had gone beyond the stop line. The question is by how much. As I said, if it was only about six inches, I would not have thought that anyone, in his right mind, would have taken all the trouble of stopping and booking the appellant in the middle of the night. It must have been the case that the appellant had gone far beyond that.

5. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the magistrate was correct in convicting the appellant. The appeal is dismissed.