HKSAR v. KWONG KI TACK

HCMA 21/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM STV 152/2003)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant in this case was convicted after trial of one charge of crossing a double white line, he was fined and the Appellant now appeals against his conviction.

2. The facts are very simple. The evidence of the police officer was that he saw the Appellant making a U-turn in Hing Choi Street and in executing this U-turn, the Appellant's car had crossed the double white line dividing the carriageway. At the time, the police officer was about 40 metres away at the end of Hing Choi Street and the Magistrate was satisfied he had a clear view of the incident. The police officer then stopped the Appellant's car and informed him that he had contravened this section in the Road Traffic Ordinance. The Appellant then replied "I am one of your ex colleagues please give me a chance." The police officer also produced a sketch plan which showed clearly how the car had executed the U-turn.

3. The Appellant elected to give evidence and said that he was not guilty as he had driven out of the entrance to a church at the side of Hing Choi Street turning right into Hing Choi Street across the double white line. And so he disputed that he had actually executed the U-turn as described by the police officer. The Appellant also claimed that Hing Choi Street was too narrow to permit a U-turn and he produced a photograph which was taken at a later day showing his car up against the kerb after apparently attempting and failing to execute a U-turn. The Magistrate rightly concluded that the photograph meant nothing, the photograph only shows a white car with a man sitting inside up against the kerb. But the crux of the case is that the Magistrate believed the police officer's evidence and did not believe the Appellant. The Magistrate accepted that had the car made the turn as described by the Appellant, the police officer would have seen it, so, the learned Magistrate then convicted the Appellant.

4. In the appeal, the Appellant complained that the learned Magistrate seemed to be wanting him to prove that it was impossible for him to make the U-turn in the manner described by the police officer. A proper reading of the learned Magistrate's Statement of Findings show that there was no such thing. The learned Magistrate convicted the Appellant because he believed the police officer's evidence.

5. Therefore, I find that there is no ground to overturn the findings of the learned Magistrate and so the appeal is dismissed. The Appellant in this case had faxed the grounds of appeal to this court at 8:14 pm last night, these grounds of appeal have not been filed, the Appellant who is acting in person should know better as he is a barrister. But I gave him leave to adduce these grounds in his appeal and I do not find any merits in these grounds so the appeal is dismissed.