HKSAR v. Au Chiu

HCMA000906/2000

HCMA 906/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 906 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM NKCC 3227/2000)

_______________

________________

Coram: Hon Beeson J in Court

Date of Hearing: 22 November 2000

Date of Judgment: 22 November 2000

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This Appellant was convicted in the Magistracy after trial on 3 offences; (1) Obstructing a Police Officer in the due Execution of his Duty contrary to section 36(b) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212; (2) Failing to Display a Taximeter Indicator, contrary to Regulations 49(1)(a) and 57(1) of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations made under the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374, and (3) Stopping a Taxi Other Than at a Taxi Stand, contrary to Regulations 45(2)(c) and 57(1) of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations, Cap. 374.

2. The charges arose from a police operation targeting taxis in Kowloon. The Appellant's taxi was standing with the taxi light on and the taximeter indicator covered by a card with the words "Not for hire" on it. However when the police officer got in the taxi and asked to go to Times Square, Causeway Bay, the Appellant replied "Yes" took down the "Not for hire" sign and started off.

3. After the taxi had moved along Nathan Road for a short distance, the police officer revealed his police identity to the Appellant, told him that he had violated the regulations and told him to drive to Shangtung Street. However, the Appellant professed to think this was a mistake and did not obey the order.

4. This occurred about five times, the police officer asking the Appellant to drive to Shantung Street and the Appellant saying that as he had been told to go to Causeway Bay, he was proceeding to go there forthwith.

5. The officer used his beat radio to report the incident to his Sergeant at the road block at Shantung Street. The Appellant continued to drive towards Causeway Bay and the officer then reported the incident to the Console at Kowloon. The taxi went through the Cross Harbour Tunnel and was stopped at Yiu Wah Street near Canal Road East on the other side by police officers on motorcycles. The Appellant was arrested and charged with the 3 offences. There was support for the account given by the officer from the police officers at Shantung Street and those who stopped the taxi.

6. The Appellant gave a very different account of what had happened. He denied having any card covering his taximeter. He said the passenger boarded and they went to the other side without anything unusual happening until the taxi got past the toll booth of the Cross Harbour Tunnel on the Kowloon side at which point the passenger asked to get off.

7. The Appellant said that he did decline this request because it was a restricted area. According to him, the passenger answered that if he did not get off, he would refuse to pay his fare.

8. The Appellant telephoned his friend, another taxi driver and informed him about the incident and asked for assistance, in particular, as to what he should do because the passenger was refusing to pay the taxi fare.

9. According to the Appellant, he told the motorcycle police that the passenger was refusing to pay the fare. His case was that at no time had the police officer ever produced his warrant card or identified himself as a police officer.

10. The Appellant denied ever hearing the police officer talk on his beat radio, or that the police officer had ever asked him to drive back to Shantung Street.

11. The Magistrate, having heard the evidence, accepted the evidence of the police officers. He stated specifically that he did not believe the Appellant or the Appellant's witness. He found his story inherently improbable; in particular he did not accept that a taxi driver of the Appellant's experience would not know what to do with a passenger who refused to pay the taxi fare.

12. The Magistrate accepted that the Appellant did call 999 but found that this was a tactic used by the Appellant to cover up his own wrong-doing and to confuse the issue generally.

13. The Magistrate analysed the case in a lengthy and detailed Statement of Findings. He reminded himself of the necessary elements of each charge and was satisfied that each charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

14. I cannot see any way to fault these convictions and the appeals against conviction are dismissed.

Representation:

Mr Paul Ho, SGC, for the DPP

Au Chiu, Appellant in person