HKSAR v. LAU PING KWAN

HCMA1065/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.1065 OF 2003

(ON APPEAL FROM STV 103 OF 2003)

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Conviction

1. On 8 October 2003 after trial the appellant was convicted of the single summons of failing to give precedence to a pedestrian who was on a zebra crossing before his vehicle had come to or over that zebra crossing, contrary to Regulations 31 and 61(1) of the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations made under the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap.374. The offence occurred on 5 February 2003 in Tak Wah Street, Tsuen Wan. He was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay $500 costs. He appeals against his conviction only.

Evidence at trial

2. PW1, PC34007, testified that he had seen a pedestrian step on to the zebra crossing in question. He waited there in the crossing. The appellant's vehicle drove up to and over the crossing at about 20 kilometres per hour. This speed did not vary. Beyond the crossing PW1 stopped the appellant and his vehicle. The defendant gave evidence. He denied there was a pedestrian on the crossing as he drove across it.

Statement of Findings

3. The learned magistrate accepted the evidence of PW1 and rejected that of the appellant. Further, he found that the appellant had no reasonable excuse for failing to stop, given the relatively slow speed which he was travelling.

Grounds of appeal against conviction

4. The appellant asserts :

"From beginning to end, I have a feeling that the judge believed what the police officer said and disbelieved me."

Conclusion

5. The issues in this case were of the very simplest kind. The very experienced magistrate had the advantage, which I do not, of having heard the appellant and PW1. There is nothing in his Statement of Findings that indicates that he approached his task in an incorrect way. Further, the appellant is unable to point to anything to support his grounds of appeal.

6. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the learned magistrate was entitled to reach the conclusion he did. There is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed.