R. v. Chow Bak Hong

HCMA001367/1996

1996, NO.MA 1367

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL

______________

______________

Coram: Hon Patrick Chan, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 19 March 1997

Date of judgment: 19 March 1997

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1. The appellant was convicted after trial of careless driving. He was fined $2,000 and ordered to pay costs of $700.

2. The witnesses were police officers. They were driving a police car along Wo Che Street. According to them, when they approached the junction with Lek Yuen Street, they saw the appellant's taxi on the right merging into the junction without stopping at the vehicle give way sign. As a result of the appellant's sudden manoeuvre, the witness said he had to brake. He had to sound his horn and swerve to the left. There was almost a collision. Fortunately it was avoided, but the closest distance between the two vehicles was as near as one metre.

3. The appellant said before the magistrate and in front of me that he did stop at the junction. He had looked for traffic and saw the police car coming into the junction. He waited for it to depart before going into the junction. But the police sounded the horn so he had to stop and subsequently the officer asked him to give his particulars and charged him for careless driving. He had an argument with the police officer.

4. The learned magistrate accepted the evidence of the police officers and did not accept the evidence of the appellant. It is clear that there is no dispute that there was a give way sign. It is also accepted by the appellant that the police officer had sounded his horn.

5. In my view, if the appellant's taxi had not come out in the way as described, there was no necessity for the officer to sound his horn. Furthermore, the appellant said that upon hearing the horn, he stopped his car. I find this rather surprising. In the course of traffic, when someone sounded a horn to give a warning, there is no need to stop unless he had in fact done something wrong or might have in fact driven carelessly. So having looked at the evidence, it does appear to me that there is evidence upon which the learned magistrate could convict. The appellant said that he had tried and in fact found the passenger he was carrying on that night. The passenger indicated that he was supportive of the appellant's case. However, up till now he was not able to persuade the passenger to come.

6. In these circumstances, I cannot say that the conviction was wrong. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr Frank Veltro, S.C.C., for Crown

Appellant in person