The Queen v. Yu Mei Wa
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 1158/1995 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 3 January 1996.
1. This was an appeal against a conviction for careless driving. It was a simple case in which a Pakistani male Singh Harcharan claimed that when driving his employer's Cadillac in Great George Street outside Windsor House in Causeway Bay at 2:10 pm on 10th December 1994, his car came into collision with the appellant's car, because she cut into his lane. He said that the right rear bumper of the appellant's car hit the left front bumper of his car. Both cars were approaching the traffic lights
|
HCMA001158/1995 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.1158 OF 1995 --------------------
-------------------- Coram : Hon. Duffy, J. in Court Date of hearing : 21 December 1995 Date of handing down judgment : 3 January 1996 ----------------------- J U D G M E N T ----------------------- 1. This was an appeal against a conviction for careless driving. It was a simple case in which a Pakistani male Singh Harcharan claimed that when driving his employer's Cadillac in Great George Street outside Windsor House in Causeway Bay at 2:10 pm on 10th December 1994, his car came into collision with the appellant's car, because she cut into his lane. He said that the right rear bumper of the appellant's car hit the left front bumper of his car. Both cars were approaching the traffic lights at the junction of Great George Street and Gloucester Road. The Pakistani male claimed that he intended to turn right, while the appellant claimed that she intended to drive to the Eastern Cross-harbour Tunnel, but there was no evidence as to her intended route after passing through the traffic light. The evidence was that the Pakistani driver's car was in the extreme right lane of three lanes, and the appellant's car was in the middle lane. The appellant called her sister who was a passenger in the car as her witness and she told the Magistrate the same story as she told the court, namely, that their car did not swerve to the right to cause the collision. In his Findings, the learned Magistrate said this :
With great respect to the learned Magistrate, if PW1's car swerved to the left as the appellant's car was passing him, then the same damage would be caused. I could not see that the damage to the vehicles helped to corroborate PW1's evidence at all, and so this conviction could not be allowed to stand. I allowed the appeal. Representation: Mr W.S. Cheung, C.C., for Crown Appellant (Yu Mei Wa) in person
|