HKSAR v. Halim Hashimi Habib

HCMA 25/2023

[2023] HKCFI 1520

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 25 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM KCS 12163 OF 2022)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

1.This is an appeal against conviction. The Appellant is absent. He was sent a registered letter for the hearing today, and also the bailiff had tried to serve the notice on him but unsuccessfully.

2.The Appellant has not filed any perfected grounds of appeal, only what was written on his Form 101.   

3.The Appellant was charged with using a bicycle on a road which was not fitted with a bell capable of giving sufficient warning contrary to Regulations 88(1) and 121(1) of the Road Traffic (Construction and Maintenance of Vehicles) Regulations, Cap 374A.   

4.The Appellant was convicted after trial and was ordered to pay a fine.           

5.The Prosecution called one witness who gave evidence about observing the bicycle with no warning bell on it.  The Appellant elected not to give evidence and no defence witnesses were called. 

6.The learned Magistrate did note the Appellant disputed the circumstances as recounted by the Prosecution witness.  At the end, the learnedMagistrate found that the Prosecution has managed to prove its case against the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, and convicted the Appellant. 

7.I have read the learned Magistrate’s Statement of Findings.  I cannot see that the learned Magistrate had made any error in his findings, I find there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the learned Magistrate’s conviction.

8.So the appeal is dismissed.  

Mr Jason Lau, SPP of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

The Appellant was unrepresented and was absent