|
HCMA000890/1986
-----------------------
Headnote
-----------------------
$400 too heavy --A fine for jay walking
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 890 OF 1986
_______________
BETWEEN
|
THE QUEEN |
Respondent
|
|
and |
|
|
CHAN Shu-ting |
Appellant
|
____________
Coram: Hon. Bewley, J. in Court
Date of Hearing: 3rd September, 1986
Date of Delivery of Judgment: 3rd September, 1986
___________
JUDGMENT
___________
1. The appellant was convicted of failing to comply with a pedestrian red signal without reasonable excuse, contrary to regulation 33 of the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations, Cap. 374. He was fined $400 with $200 costs. The appeal is against conviction and sentence.
2. The facts were very simple. PC19951 was in uniform at Sha Tsui Road on 11th March this year at 5.35 P.m. He was there to watch the pedestrian crossing, which was controlled by lights.
3. He stopped two persons who crossed when the light was red and one of whom was the appellant. Shortly after they had reached the other side the light turned to green.
4. The appellant gave evidence and said that, when he crossed, the light was green. Ahead of him was a bunch of pedestrians who had started to cross against the red light. Four seconds later the light changed to green, the appellant started to cross and overtook the pedestrians ahead of him. When he reached the other side he was stopped by the officer. Three minutes later the other pedestrian who was arrested crossed the road.
5. The magistrate believed PC19951 and he disbelieved the appellant. It was a question credibility. I am unable to say that, having heard both witnesses, the magistrate came to the wrong conclusion. I therefore dismiss the appeal against conviction.
6. $400 is a severe penalty for this offence and counsel for the Crown confirms that the usual sentence is about $150. The appellant himself says that another defendant that day was fined $200 for the same offence.
7. The order for costs is also on the high side, but the record shows that the appellant failed to attend No. 1 court for the purpose of fixing the date of hearing, and a warrant eras issued. I do not propose therefore to interfere with this order.
8. The appeal against sentence is allowed and the fine reduced to $200.
|
(E. de B. Bewley)
Judge of the High Court
|
Representation:
Mr. M. D. Wilson, Crown Counsel for the Respondent
Appellant in person
|