The Queen v. Chan Chun Hei, David
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 235/1996 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 27 March 1996.
1. The Appellant was convicted on 27th December 1995 of careless driving and fined $1,500. The facts arose out of an accident which occurred in a carpark on 13th December 1994 at about 8:30 p.m. The accident occurred when a car driven by a lady had reversed out of a parking place and was travelling across the carpark to attempt to exist via an entrance to the carpark, an exit which she was not permitted to use. The Appellant was reversing out of another carpark and struck her vehicle as he did s
|
HCMA000235/1996 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 235 OF 1996 --------------
-------------- Coram : Hon Gall, J. in Court Date of hearing : 27 March 1996 Date of judgment : 27 March 1996 ------------------------ J U D G M E N T ------------------------ 1. The Appellant was convicted on 27th December 1995 of careless driving and fined $1,500. The facts arose out of an accident which occurred in a carpark on 13th December 1994 at about 8:30 p.m. The accident occurred when a car driven by a lady had reversed out of a parking place and was travelling across the carpark to attempt to exist via an entrance to the carpark, an exit which she was not permitted to use. The Appellant was reversing out of another carpark and struck her vehicle as he did so. The learned Magistrate found that he had been careless in doing so. 2. The Ground of the appeal amongst to this: the Appellant says that the vehicle which he struck should not, and could not, by any reason and prudent driver, have been anticipated to have been in the position it was at the time of the collision and that he was in fact keeping a proper look out. His argument is that the learned Magistrate did not address her mind to the fact that the other vehicle was traversing part of the carpark to a point where she was not permitted to exist, and that a reason and prudent driver taking reasonable care would have fallen into the same predicament as the Appellant. 3. Given that the matter was never addressed by the Special Magistrate, I must have some lurking doubt as to the effectiveness of this conviction. The appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence is allowed and the sentence is quashed. Representation: Mr Albert Wong, S.C.C., for Crown Appellant Chan Chun Hei, David in person - 2 -
|