Chan Yuet Ngor v. The Queen

CACC000303/1972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 303 OF 1972

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

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

Coram: Leonard J.

Date of Judgment: 5th June, 1972.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The case for the Crown was that the appellant while reversing her car (stated in the charge to be registered AK 8508 but in the evidence of the witness for the Crown to be registered as AK 8506) in a car park collided with a stationary car occupied by the sole witness for the Crown. The appellant had in the court below denied the fact of the collision. In this denial she was supported by one witness, an independent onlooker who had been in another parked car. The appellant indicated in the court below that this witness was unknown to her prior to the dispute, arising out of the proximity of the cars of appellant and the Crown witness and that the witness had given her telephone number to the appellant so that she might be called as a witness.

2. The appellant who was unrepresented vehemently maintained her denial before me.

3. In his statement of findings the learned magistrate says :-

"PW1 Madam CHUNG Wai-yin gave her evidence clearly and well. The appellant on the other hand was not so definite when giving evidence nor was her witness Madam Wong. I did not accept their account of what happened. I found the appellant guilty ....."

It will be noted that he does not state expressly that he had formed the conclusion that the appellant and her witness were lying nor does he give any reason why the independant witness should have done so.

4. I appreciate that the learned magistrate was in a much better position than I to judge credibility and that he knew full well what the onus of proof was and where it lay. However he does not comment on the prosecution witness' lapse of memory as to the registered number of the appellant's car nor can I be sure that he adverted to the essential issue he had to consider namely whether the evidence of the appellant and her witness was such as to raise a reasonable doubt as to guilt in his mind. I therefore consider that it would be unsafe to allow this conviction to stand and I allow the appeal as to conviction.

5th June, 1972.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Caird for Respondent.

Oral judgment reduced into writing.