HKSAR v. Wong Kam Hoi

HCMA000353/2000

HCMA 353/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 3848/1999)

____________

____________

Coram: Hon Beeson J in Court

Date of Hearing: 7 September 2000

Date of Judgment: 7 September 2000

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This Appellant appeals against his conviction on a charge of Careless Driving that was heard in the Magistracy. His complaints, which were his grounds of appeal, were set out in detail in a written statement sent to the court.

2. His major complaint appears to be that this was such a trivial matter that he should not have been prosecuted in the first place. He refers the court to comments, allegedly made by the Magistrate, criticising the police for putting a traffic accident so trivial into the court's hands.

3. There was also a complaint that the Magistrate saw the Summary of Facts prior to trial, although I note that the Magistrate made it quite clear that the only reason he did so was to consider the possibility of agreeing certain facts and also for its use as an opening for the prosecution. Appellant complained that the Magistrate dealt with the matter far too hurriedly. He complained too that the conviction was grounded on insufficient evidence. The Appellant is grieved that the Magistrate did not accept his explanation that there were grease stains on the ground which, according to his defence, had caused the accident. The Appellant considered that some of the evidence was rejected improperly. In particular he appears to take exception to the fact that the police officer was not called to give evidence. However, as the police officer only drew the plan it is difficult to see what advantage would have been derived from his being called.

4. The Appellant says the offence of Careless Driving could not be established because of the grease stains on the road and because the section of the road in question was a descending slope. His point was that however hard he tried to apply the brake, or sound the horn, or swerve, the vehicle would still skid because of the grease and the incline. He describes the incident as an accident, but not careless driving.

5. I have examined the Magistrate's Statement of Findings in detail. He summarised the facts of the incident succinctly. It was a simple rear end collision in slow-moving traffic. The Magistrate took note of the Appellant's complaints about the grease on the road but concluded that he did not accept that evidence. He found that the Appellant had either been inattentive, or too close to the vehicle in front to be able to stop, or that he had been possibly impatient with the other vehicle's failure to keep up with the car ahead, or a combination of those factors. He correctly described the incident as careless driving and I am satisfied that on the evidence before him he was entitled to come to that finding.

6. I accept that the Appellant will be disappointed with this conclusion, because no driver likes to think that he is a careless driver. However, I can see no indication that this was a unfair trial, nor do I consider that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr Zervos, SADPP, for D.P.P.

Appellant in person