R. v. Ko Cheung Fat

HCMA000199/1997

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 199 OF 1997

(On Appeal from TMS No. 7086 of 1996)

______________

______________

Coram: Hon Wally Yeung J. in Court

Date of hearing: 13 June 1997

Date of judgment: 13 June 1997

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The applicant, KO Cheung-fat, was convicted after trial on a charge of Careless driving. He now seeks leave to appeal against such conviction.

2. The allegation against the applicant was that he was, at the time of the offence, the driver of an urban taxi, FP 1990, and he was travelling along Tuen Mun Road. When his taxi was descending the Tuen Mun Road towards Tuen Mun Court, it was travelling originally in the middle lane following some other vehicles. There was a maxi-cab, EN 8945, travelling on the fast lane. The maxi-cab, EN 8945, was originally behind the applicant's taxi, but it was travelling at a slightly higher speed and was able to catch up with the applicant's taxi.

3. According to the driver of this maxi-cab, the applicant suddenly drove from the middle lane onto the fast lane in front of this maxi-cab, 8945, and slowed to stop, causing the driver of the maxi-cab to stop abruptly. But the maxi-cab, 8945, was unable to stop in time thus running into the rear of the applicant's taxi.

4. The account by the driver of the maxi-cab of the accident was to some extent confirmed by a passenger who at the material time was on board this maxi-cab, EN 8945. He confirmed that the applicant's taxi drove from the middle lane onto the fast lane at a short distance ahead of the maxi-cab, EN 8945, and then it slowed down, thus causing the maxi-cab to break suddenly because the applicant's taxi reduced speed after cutting into the fast lane.

5. The applicant, on the other hand, suggested that it was after he had changed into the fast lane and had travelled for about 100 metres before the collision took place. He said he was travelling at a normal speed, and he denied having reduced the speed at all.

6. If the applicant's account of the cause of the collision was correct, it would mean it was the driver of this maxi-cab, EN 8945, who was accelerating and catching up with the applicant's taxi to collide with it. Such account, in the circumstances of this case, in my view, was not possible, a view clearly taken by the learned magistrate, and if I may say so, quite rightly so.

7. There was the suggestion that there was some discrepancies between the evidence of the driver of EN 8945 and the evidence of the passenger as to whether the applicant's car actually reduced its speed to a stop or whether it simply reduced speed to slow down. Bearing in mind that we were talking about an accident in a highway where the traffic was busy and vehicles are travelling at a considerably high speed. The observation by different people as to whether a vehicle actually stopped or just slowed down just before the moment of collision might not be identical even though they might be observing the same incident.

8. The fact remained, on the evidence as found by the magistrate, that the applicant cut into the fast lane from the middle lane in a manner leaving not adequate space or time for the vehicle in the fast lane to stop in time, thus causing the collision between the two vehicles in question.

9. On the evidence, the learned magistrate was entitled to conclude that such behaviour or manner of driving on the part of the applicant by cutting into the fast lane from the middle lane without leaving adequate time for vehicles in the fast lane to break, when he suddenly either reduced the speed of his vehicle or brought it to a stand-still, clearly constitutes careless driving.

10. Such a matter, as found by the learned magistrate, which on the evidence he was entitled to so find, supported the conviction. On the evidence, the applicant was rightly convicted of the charge of Careless driving, and therefore, the application for leave to appeal is refused.

Representation:

Mr Sharman LAM, Crown Counsel, for the Respondent

Miss Candace FONG (S Y Fung), for the Appellant