HKSAR v. LAU SHING KUI

HCMA1175/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.1175 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC3105 OF 2000)

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant, Lau Shing Kui, was convicted of one charge of careless driving after his trial before a magistrate. The accident giving rise to the charge occurred on 20 June 2000 at about 10:45 a.m. along Tai Koo Shing Road at a zebra crossing when the appellant's taxi knocked down a pedestrian.

2. The appellant was charged with reckless driving. At the conclusion of the trial the learned magistrate considered that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt the reckless driving charge but the evidence supported a careless driving charge. The appellant was convicted thereon.

3. The prosecution called three witnesses. The 1st prosecution witness was the victim of the accident. Her evidence was that on the morning in question, she stopped at the pavement of the pedestrian zebra crossing and checked the traffic for some two to three seconds before she started to cross the road. It was drizzling at the time but her line of vision was clear. As she was crossing the zebra crossing, she was hit and knocked to the ground by the side mirror of the appellant's taxi. She sustained minor injuries. The evidence of the two police officers who appeared as the 2nd and 3rd prosecution witnesses were not challenged.

4. The appellant at the trial elected not to give evidence and no defence witness was called. The learned magistrate concluded by observing that the three prosecution witnesses were honest and credible witnesses and accepted their evidence. He found the 1st prosecution witness had given a clear account on what had happened that morning.

5. Mr Chan who also appears for the appellant today submitted to the learned magistrate at the trial that it was the victim who stepped onto the zebra crossing as the vehicle was being driven through and therefore it was the victim who hit the reflective mirror. The accident was unavoidable and it was through no fault or carelessness on the part of the appellant.

6. Mr Chan repeated the same submissions this morning the arguments of which in my view, amount to no more than speculative assertions. He referred me to Regulation 31 which provides for precedence for pedestrians using a zebra crossing. Suffice it for me to say that the learned magistrate has considered all the evidence before him as well as the points raised by Mr Chan in his submissions. There was no evidence in the court below to contradict the prosecution evidence. It was based on the evidence of the 1st prosecution witness, the account of which the learned magistrate accepted, that she was already walking along the zebra crossing when she was knocked down by the appellant's taxi.

7. Mr Chan submitted that the taxi driven by the appellant was driving slowly and as such he could not have been careless. While I accept that the taxi was being driven at a slow speed, it is, however, on the basis that the appellant had not been paying sufficient attention to the pedestrians on the zebra crossing that his conviction was founded.

8. The magistrate was entitled to come to the conclusion as he did based on the evidence before him. He had considered the submissions of Mr Chan in the court below and had rejected the same. The criticism levelled against the learned magistrate at this appeal is unfounded. For the reasons given, the appeal against the appellant's conviction of careless driving is dismissed