Adrian Armstrong Huggins v. The Queen
|
CACC000203/1978 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Appellate Jurisdiction) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.203 OF 1978 -----------------
----------------- CORAM: Li, J. Date of Judgment: 6th April 1978 at 2.39 p.m. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. This is an appeal against conviction of the charge of careless driving. What led to the conviction a traffic accident at a place which is familiar to many people who have gone up to the Peak. It took place some ten to twelve feet beyond the point of merger, between Homestead Road and Peak Road as one travelled towards the Peak Tram Station. Going down Homestead Road, there are some railings on the right. A few feet beyond the railings is the point of merger of the two roads. Anyone who wants to go down from Homestead Road to town would have to do a U-turn at some point beyond the tip of the point of merger. 2. Homestead Road is slightly higher in level than the Peak Road. As one approaches the junction, there is a 'stop' sign on the left of Homestead Road and at the tip of the merger at the junction, there is a line drawn with the word 'slow' written on the surface of the road. 3. Going along the Peak Road towards the Peak Station one will pass the junction. But before one approaches the junction, one would see a 'reduce speed' sign on the left, then a 'school' sign, and then, lastly, a 'Road Junction' sign. 4. These are well illustrated in the photographs Exhibit D2 to D7 and the two sketch plans, one produced by the prosecution and one produced by the defence, respectively Exhibit P1 and Exhibit D1. Perhaps I should observe that neither sketch plan can be described as a scale plan although the plan that is produced by the prosecution as P1 has been described as 'to scale'. One look at the sketch plan produced by the prosecution will show that it is by no means drawn to scale. In all fairness to the police, I must also observe that by the time the matter was reported to the police and by the time the sketch plan was prepared both the vehicles in collision had been cleared from the road and it was not possible to put the various points accurately. The position of the vehicles after collision was not even shown in the prosecution plan. However Exhibit D1 gives a far more detailed description of the various positions of the signs and the vehicles showing the point of impact, the position of the cars, and the direction of the cars after impact. It is admittedly not drawn to scale. But both plans are agreed plans of the prosecution as well as the defence. 5. The witness for the prosecution agreed that Exhibit D1 - the plan produced by the defence - accurately described the position of the vehicles, the road and the road signs except that the point of impact was probably about ten to twelve feet or thirteen feet further on towards the direction of the Peak Tram Station. But there is no dispute as to the position of the two vehicles after impact in the centre of the road. 6. The appellant's version at the trial was that as he came down from Homestead Road, he stopped his vehicle at the merging point of the two roads. He saw no vehicle approaching. He moved forward for about two feet. Then he looked right down to Peak Road. He had a clear vision of a hundred and ten feet. He saw no vehicle approaching. He decided to make the U turn to go downtown. As he manoeuvred his car to the right, he saw a car - a taxi - arriving at high speed. He continued with the turn. Then the collision occurred in the position as shown in Exhibit D1, which is very near the centre of the road. The offside front of the taxi hit the offside rear of the appellant's car. 7. The prosecution witness's version was that as he approached the Homestead junction, he saw a 'Reduce Speed' sign. He reduced his speed to roughly about eighteen to twenty miles per hour. At the junction he saw no vehicle coming round. He then, at the junction, increased the speed of his taxi to twenty-three miles per hour. He looked left at the junction and he saw no car. The next thing that happened was he saw the appellant's car making a U-turn, and did not stop from doing so. When he saw the appellant's car, it was about ten to twelve feet away from his taxi. He immediately applied his brake and tried to swerve to the left, namely to the nearside, in order to avoid collision. He did not succeed in doing so. In his evidence in cross-examination, he said he was not sure of the signs. He said that when he first saw the appellant's vehicle, he was about ten or twelve feet away. He was at that time travelling at twenty-three miles per hour. 8. On this evidence, the learned magistrate found that the appellant, when approaching the junction, stopped his vehicle, had a look and had a clear vision of a hundred and ten feet. The appellant did not see the taxi approaching. The learned magistrate also concluded that the appellant must be travelling at an excessive speed. He also found that there was no evidence to suggest that the taxi driver was at fault. He found that the Peak Road was a major road and that the point of impact took place within the right side of the road for the taxi driver. He found that it was a difficult junction. The responsibility was on the appellant, and therefore, the appellant must be convicted of the offence charged, namely careless driving. 9. I like to observe that had the learned trial judge found as a fact that the appellant was careless or was driving without due consideration for other users of the road, that would be the end of the matter. Alternatively, if he found that the appellant had not stopped at all, again it would be the end of the matter. However he gave reasons why he found the appellant careless other than these reasons. First of all, on his findings, he concluded that there was no evidence to suggest the taxi driver was at fault. With due respect, I cannot agree with him. The taxi driver said he was not sure of the road signs. There were three of them which he passed. He said that he reduced speed when he approached the junction but at the junction he increased speed. One would have thought that the point where he could increase speed, (if he must increase speed at all), was at a point when he had gone past the junction, not at the junction. Secondly, he said at the junction he looked left and he did not see the defendant's car. This accounted for his account that only he saw the defendant's car about ten or twelve feet away from him. 10. As I have observed, that part of the road must be well known to any person who travelled along that part frequently. As I understand the position, coming up from town along the Peak Road, towards the Peak Tram Station, the driver would find that Homestead Road is slightly above the level of the Peak Road. As one passes underneath the bridge, Jardine's Bridge, Homestead Road is completely obscured from the driver along the Peak Road. But the more one goes up as one goes towards the Peak Station, then certain parts of Homestead Road will be in sight on the left until the two road merges at one point. The driver will be able to see if there is any vehicle on Homestead Road if he is careful well before the point of merger. One can have a very clear vision of any moving object coming down from Homestead Road. How the taxi driver could say that when he looked left at the junction he saw no vehicle is beyond me. The taxi driver must be negligent when he said he saw no vehicle at the junction and suddenly saw the appellant's car. However fast the appellant's vehicle might be travelling, the taxi driver could and should have observed it. It can hardly be said that there was no evidence to suggest that the taxi driver was at fault at all. That is not the criterion. The taxi driver was not on trial. However his conduct may only reflect upon his manner of driving. Whatever said by the taxi driver should not be taken literally. 11. Another contradiction is that the learned magistrate found the appellant did stop at the junction and that he saw no car approaching before he proceeded to make his turn. The learned magistrate did not find him negligent in not seeing a vehicle approaching yet found him careless or negligent because he made that turn. One is put back to that rhetorical question, "would a driver coming down from Homestead Road, seeing that no vehicles approaching, still have to stop his car until Doomsday before he moved on? Was he to make a quick dash out of it? After all the appellant found a hundred and ten feet distance of clear road. This would give him ample time to cross the road. 12. The grounds of appeal are set out in the Additional Grounds of Appeal. I shall not repeat them. Suffice it to say that it does show that the learned magistrate when he convicted the appellant of careless driving, took into consideration solely that the Peak Road was a major road, that it was a difficult junction, and that the collision took place within the line of traffic of the taxi if one looks at Exhibit D1, at the plan, one would observe that the appellant's vehicle had practically gone past the centre line and was nearly out of the taxi driver's path. This rear portion of his vehicle was jutting out a little of the centre line. In other words, had not cleared the path of the taxi driver by a rear row margin. The taxi driver said that when he saw the vehicle, it was about twelve feet away from his taxi. He said he immediately applied the brake and to swerve the taxi to the left. 13. I have been informed by learned counsel for the appellant that according to the Highway Code, travelling at twenty miles per hour, the thinking speed alone would take twenty feet. The travelling distance would be 33.7 feet per second. When the taxi driver observed the appellant's car only 12 feet to 13 feet in front of his the taxi driver had barely one-third of a second to put his reaction into action to stop the vehicle. In fact, he never could have any chance to swerve the vehicle and to brake at all. 14. Having looked at the vehicle and having regard to the finding of the learned magistrate, I am of the opinion that this conviction is unsafe and the verdict is not satisfactory. For this reason, the appeal must be allowed, the sentence is set aside, and the fine returned to the appellant. 15. Perhaps I should add that the way that the road signs were put as I described on the Homestead Road, it is really a driver's trap. If a person stopped at the 'Slow' sign, at a line that was drawn as indicated the vehicle would be standing parallel to the Peak Road. Even at the twist of one's neck, one can see probably about thirty feet down the Peak Road. There would be no way of finding out whether there's any vehicle coming or in danger of collision. For those who are responsible for marking road signs and knowing road traffic correctly, one would have expected that the line where the 'slow' sign was drawn should be not parallel to the Peak Road but perpendicular to the Peak Road and perhaps jutting out a little bit to the Peak Road so as to enable the driver - as in this case the appellant - to move his vehicle a couple of feet beyond the deadline so as to look down for a hundred and ten feet. Even so, it has shown to be dangerous. The moral is: if traffic signs are constructed in such a way, the only safe way is either to walk or take the Mass Transit when it is extended up the Peak when it's ready. Anyway, the appeal is allowed and the sentence is set aside. Representation: |