HKSAR v. Chan Chi Keung

HCMA000640A/2000

HCMA640/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.640 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM TWCC 491 OF 2000)

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

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

Coram: Hon Gall J in Court

Date of Hearing: 14 December 2000

Date of Judgment: 14 December 2000

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This is a motion for an order certifying that a point of law of great and general importance is involved in the matter before me, and that leave should be granted for the appellant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

2. The appellant was convicted on 8 June 2000 of one charge of driving a public light bus on a road recklessly, contrary to section 37(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap.374. He was convicted after trial and was sentenced by the magistrate to a period of three months' imprisonment suspended for 18 months, fined a sum of $5,000 and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of 18 months. He appealed that sentence and on 24 October 2000, the appeal was dismissed.

3. The appellant is in person. Being unrepresented, he has approached the matter before me on the basis that injustice has been done to him without arguing any substantial point of law.

4. Briefly, the facts of the matter were that at 8.50 a.m. on 31 January 2000, he was following a public light bus and another private car along Castle Peak Road. That public light bus and the car stopped at the pedestrian crossing to let passengers alight. The appellant claims that the light was green to traffic and that that public light bus was in error in stopping at that point. Becoming impatient, by his own admission, the appellant pulled across double white lines to the opposite carriageway and passed the public light bus and the private car in front of him on the wrong side of the road, passing through the pedestrian crossing on the wrong side of the road. A pedestrian crossing that carriageway at that time was knocked down and injured, fortunately not seriously. The appellant argues that the pedestrian was crossing against the lights and that his culpability was not such as to justify the penalty passed upon him.

5. The matter was fully canvassed before the magistrate and on appeal. There is no point of law of great and general importance involved and in my view, no substantial injustice. The notice is refused, and the application for leave is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr Daniel Ozorio, SGC of Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Appellant in person, present