R. v. Yip Kam Lam

HCMA000731/1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 731 OF 1996

--------------------

--------------------

Coram : Hon Stock, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 14 August 1996

Date of judgment : 14 August 1996

------------------------

J U D G M E N T

------------------------

1. This is an appeal against conviction. The appellant was charged with careless driving. It was alleged that he drove carelessly on 13th June 1995. He appeared before the magistrate on 22nd May 1996, and pleaded not guilty.

2. The prosecution evidence before the magistrate was that the appellant jumped a red light whilst driving his vehicle from Tsing Lun Road to Tsing Chung Koon Road, and that his driving was such that after he turned into Tsing Chung Koon Road, he caused four pedestrians who were crossing on the pedestrian crossing to scurry out of the way. Evidence to this effect was given by a police sergeant who said he saw these events.

3. The appellant gave evidence before the magistrate. He denied jumping the red light. He said that the light had changed to amber when he crossed. He denied that there were any pedestrians on the crossing and he denied that the sergeant had been following him. This was, he said, a frame-up as was clear, he said, from the conversation he had with the sergeant after the sergeant had stopped him.

4. The appellant has submitted a careful letter to the court in support to this appeal and he has addressed me at some length and with clarity this morning. He pursues before me his allegation the sergeant framed him and that the sergeant was quite openly saying that if the appellant did not admit that he jumped the light he would prosecute him.

5. The appellant must understand that my job is not to determine the true facts of the case. If I were to do so I would have to hear not only from the appellant but also from the sergeant. Under our system of law, the Appeal Court examines the record and decides whether the magistrate has made any obvious error as to law or whether he has come to the decision which was irrational in the light of the evidence that was given. I have read the record in this case and the magistrate has very carefully summarised the evidence and he has applied the law correctly. Now he saw and heard to the witnesses in the case and it so happens that he believed the evidence of the sergeant and he did not accept the evidence of the appellant. Now that was a decision to which the magistrate who saw both the witnesses was entitled to come and behind which I cannot in the circumstances go. Once he believed the sergeant and disbelieved the defendant, the conviction for careless driving was inevitable. In the circumstances, I am bound to dismiss this appeal.

Representation:

Miss J. Mahomed, S.C.C., for Crown

Appellant, Yip Kam Lam, in person