HKSAR v. Leung Chi Chiu

HCMA001054/1999

HCMA 1054/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1054 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM ESV 111/1999)

____________

____________

Coram: Deputy Judge To in Court

Date of Hearing: 24 March 2000

Date of Judgment: 24 March 2000

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant was convicted after trial of failing to comply with a traffic light signal in Harcourt Road at the junction with Cotton Tree Drive. He maintained that he could not be found guilty as the fixed penalty ticket contained an incorrect Chinese character for "Harcourt Road". Today, he further advanced the argument that the date was also wrong because the year of the offence as stated on the ticket was the year 99, which was 1,901 years ago. He said that the learned magistrate should not have accepted the evidence from the officer who was blatantly lying as he could not have been driving 1,901 years ago.

2. He had given evidence at the trial contesting the evidence of the officer who issued him the fixed penalty ticket. He did not dispute about the date, month and year and the location of the alleged offence. His only dispute was whether the traffic light was red or green. He knew full well the ordinary practice of writing down only the last two digits in identifying the year and that according to current usage, "year 99" means "1999 AD". The points he took both at trial and today are misguided and his grounds of appeal are frivolous and vexatious.

3. The issue before the learned magistrate was one of credibility, i.e. whether he should believe the officer's allegation that the appellant drove past a red traffic light. The learned magistrate, having heard the evidence from both the officer and appellant and having observed their demeanour, found the officer was a credible witness and the appellant was not. Having read the learned magistrate's statement of finding and his contemporaneous reasons for verdict, I am satisfied that the learned magistrate was fully entitled to form that view. I can see no reason to interfere with the learned magistrate's assessment of credibility of witnesses, which he only has the opportunity to observe and assess.

4. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal.

Representation:

Mr Wong Chi Wai, Government Counsel of the Department of Justice for the Respondent

Mr Leung Chi-chiu, Appellant in person