HKSAR v. Chan Ka Ki Alex

HCMA000977/1999

HCMA977/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 977 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM SPS 8260 OF 1999)

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

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

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Tong in Court

Date of Hearing: 18 August 2000

Date of Judgment: 18 August 2000

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant was summonsed for the offence of failing to comply with the traffic signal, ie he crossed the road against the red light. He pleaded not guilty and was convicted after trial. He sought to appeal against the sentence.

2. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant, representing himself, raised three main grounds of complaint. He pointed out that there were contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witness, that the magistrate had failed to pay attention to the duration and timing of the traffic lights, and that he was described as the "offender" in the sketch produced. In relation to such a description, the appellant argued that it had effectively infringed upon the principle of presumption of innocence.

3. This was a straight-forward case. The main issue was whether the appellant, as a pedestrian, had disobeyed the red traffic light. Both the traffic warden and the appellant had given evidence. Having seen and heard the witnesses, the learned magistrate rejected the account given by the appellant and accepted the evidence of the prosecution witness. On this basis, the conviction was inevitable as the traffic warden testified that he had seen the appellant walked across the road against the red traffic light. Regarding the description of the appellant in the sketch, I was not persuaded that it had any merit as a ground of appeal. I agreed that the appellant should be properly referred to as a "suspect" before he was convicted, however, there was no indication that the trial magistrate, being a professional, was in the slightest way affected by this label.

4. As I had explained to the appellant, the function of this court was not to engage in a re-trial of the matter. The learned magistrate had made a decision based on the evidence and his reasons were stated in his Statement of Findings. I could not find any ground to disturb his findings.

5. The appeal must be dismissed.

Representation:

Ms C. P.C. Ko, SGC, for DPP/Respondent

Appellant in person