R. v. Ho Wai-luek, Igor

HCMA001142/1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1142 OF 1996

______________

______________

Coram: Stuart-Moore, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 27 December 1996

Date of judgment: 27 December 1996

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1. The Appellant was convicted by Mr. K.E. Ball at the Shatin Magistrates' Court on 19th August 1996, of driving in excess the speed limit by more than 30 kph. He was fined $1,800 and he appeals against only his conviction.

2. The learned Magistrate took exceptional care in trying this case although it was apparent from the outset that there really was no dispute that the Appellant was exceeding the relevant speed limit. The Appellant himself conceded that he had not looked at the speedometer in his car to see his speed in kilometres per hour. He apparently preferred to check against miles per hour. Even so, he agreed that he might have travelled at speeds of up to 60 mph. The officer had recorded speeds of up to 109 kph and it was with that figure and reading that the Appellant took issue.

3. If the learned Magistrate had come to any other conclusion than the one at which he arrived, it would have been truly remarkable. He decided that he was sure that the Appellant had exceeded the relevant speed limit in the way set out in the summons. Everything in the papers before me confirms that that was the only reasonable decision open to him. I can see that the Appellant might think that the police officer had gone faster than the Appellant's car was travelling and that he had done so because he was catching up with the Appellant's car. That does not make this Appellant not guilty of the offence. This appeal must be dismissed.

4. Before departing from the appeal finally, I should like to express my gratitude to the learned Magistrate for providing me with a most helpful "Explanatory Note" relating to this appeal which he drafted as a form of reply to some of the points raised by the Appellant. I need perhaps say no more than that I am perfectly satisfied, in view of the meticulously fair way in which the trial appears to have been conducted, that there was no prejudgment of the case on the part of Mr. Ball.

Representation:

Mr. Y.M. Liu, S.C.C. for Crown.

Appellant in person.