THE QUEEN v. LAU CHIN CHI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 86 OF 1995

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

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The Appellant was convicted of one charge of careless driving before a Magistrate. He was fined $1,500 and ordered to pay costs of an equal amount. He appeals against conviction.

2. A taxi driven by the Appellant and a private car collided at the junction of Nathan Road and Granville Road. The driver of the private car testified that before turning into Nathan Road from Granville Road, he stopped his car in front of the traffic light before the junction with Nathan Road and when the traffic light turned green and after all the pedestrians had crossed the road he started off and turned into Nathan Road. He was driving at a speed less than 5 mph. In the course of turning into Nathan Road, his car was run into by the taxi driven by the Appellant, which was coming from the south bound direction of Nathan Road at a speed that he estimated to be 30 to 40 mph. He had not seen the taxi approaching before he turned.

3. The Appellant contested the version of the driver of the private car vigorously. He said that he had stopped in front of set (B) traffic light before the junction with Granville Road. The traffic light was red and when it turned green he started off at a speed between 10 to 15 kmph. When he reached the junction with Granville Road, he suddenly heard a sound from the left front of his vehicle and a collision occurred. The speed of the other car was around 30 to 40 kmph.

4. Traffic lights set (C) and set (D) were checked by PC5989 after the accident and found to be functioning properly, and that is when one set of traffic light was red, the other would be green and vice versa. The officer did not check the other two sets of traffic lights designated (A) and (B). Set B of the traffic light controlled the south bound traffic flow of Nathan Road.

5. The Magistrate considered that this was a one against one case. In convicting the Appellant, the Magistrate relied on the demeanour of the witnesses as well as the speed of the taxi driven by the Appellant. In my judgment, he could not rely on the speed of the taxi because there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Appellant was driving at a speed of 30-40 mph. At p. 7 of the Appeal Bundle, the following question and answer emerged:

The speed of the taxi was therefore based on the opinion of the driver of the private car. There might be other explanations. There is no evidence whether traffic lights (A) and (B) were working properly.

6. In the circumstances, the conviction cannot be regarded as safe and satisfactory. The appeal is allowed, the conviction quashed and the fine, if paid, is to be refunded.