HKSAR v. BOULAUD PATRICK FRANCOIS BERNARD

HCMA 671/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 671 OF 2000

(On appeal from Western Magistracy Case No. WSCC 7539/2000)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant, Mr Patrick Boulaud, appeals against his conviction on 2 June by Miss Polly Lo, Special Magistrate, sitting at Western Magistracy for an offence of what is colloquially called using a private car on the road without insurance contrary to the Motor Vehicles Insurance Third Party Risks Ordinance Cap. 272. Miss Lo fined the appellant $1,000 and disqualified him from driving for six months for that offence.

2. Originally the appellant appealed that sentence, but I am informed this morning that he has abandoned the appeal.

3. At trial the appellant represented himself, he is a French national. At no time did he ask Miss Lo to arrange for the judiciary to provide him with the assistance of a French interpreter. Indeed, from the transcript it appears the appellant is able to converse quite adequately in English.

4. In brief, the prosecution's case against the appellant was that at 0748 hours on 8 January, a uniformed branch police officer saw a private car, registered number FV9800, illegally parked in Carmel Road, near to a lamp post. He noticed its vehicle license had expired on 18 May 1999. He noticed the appellant return to collect the vehicle. The appellant claimed to the officer to be the vehicle's owner. The police officer issued him with a POL16, requiring him to produce his vehicle insurance to Happy Valley Police Station.

5. On a later day the appellant brought an insurance certificate to Happy Valley Police Station for inspection. It only covered the vehicle up to the 6 January 2000. This meant that the third party insurance cover had expired two days before the vehicle was found in Carmel Road.

6. On 15 April 2000 another police officer interviewed the appellant. He admitted that he had not realised that his vehicle license had expired and admitted that on 8 January he had driven the vehicle to Stanley.

7. At the hearing before Miss Lo the appellant pleaded guilty to the offence. He admitted the facts when Miss Lo outlined them to him. In fact he went on to say this, I read it from the transcript of the proceedings. Miss Lo is speaking, "Facts agreed first?" Defendant, "Yes." Miss Lo, "Yes, you can add something now." Defendant, "Okay, just one thing, my insurance expired on 6 January." Miss Lo, "Yes." Defendant, "We came back from an overseas trip on 7 January, which was on Friday, and I drove the car on 8 January." Miss Lo, "Yes." Defendant, "And I re-insured the car on 10 January, so I'm guilty, but these are the facts."

8. It is said before me this morning that Miss Lo erred in law in convicting the appellant as there was insufficient evidence for her to find him guilty, in that the facts put to him by Miss Lo did not disclose that he had used the vehicle and committed the offence at the material time.

9. This is arrant nonsense. There was the best evidence possible, a clear and unequivocal plea of guilty coupled with a voluntary and spontaneous admission to the magistrate. Miss Lo was quite right to convict the appellant. She was as equally right to refuse his application for review, made on 15 June 2000.

10. Indeed, the appellant's appeal against conviction has no legal basis, because Section 113(1) of the Magistrates Ordinance provides this:

"Any person aggrieved by a conviction order or determination of a Magistrate in respect of or in connection with any offence, who did not plead guilty or admit the truth of the information or complaint, may appeal from the conviction order or determination in manner hereinafter provided to a Judge."

11. The appellant's appeal against conviction is dismissed.