HKSAR v. Lung Kar Hing, Robert

HCMA000680A/2000

HCMA680/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.680 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM NKS5838 OF 2000)

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

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

Coram: Hon Tong J in Court

Date of Hearing: 11 October 2000

Date of Judgment: 11 October 2000

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The applicant was summonsed for the offence of being a pedestrian at a light signal crossing did, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with the indication given by a red signal as prescribed by Regulation 33, Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Reg., Cap.374. The applicant denied the offence and was convicted by the learned magistrate.

2. The applicant appealed to the Court of First Instance and his appeal was dismissed on 30 August 2000. Basically, the reason for dismissing the appeal was that there were no grounds to disturb the learned magistrate's finding of fact.

3. The applicant was dissatisfied with the decision and sought leave from this court to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. He relied on several grounds to support his application. They were namely that :-

"1) I SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL I WAS PROVED GUILTY.

2) DIDN'T KNOW I COULD CROSS-EXAMINE THE PROSECUTION WITNESS UNITL THE TRIAL HAD STARTED.

3) MY NAME HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY CHANGED FROM ROBERT LUNG TO LUNG ROBERT. (NB PAUL SIMON'S SURNAME IS SIMON AND SIMON PAUL'S SURNAME IS PAUL)

4) LOUIS TONG, THE DEPUTY JUDGE, SIMPLY REPEATS WHAT THE MAGISTRATE SAYS IN THE STATEMENT OF FINDINGS.

5) MR TONG MISQUOTES ME IN HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION V ROBERT LUNG.

6) DUTY LAWYERS WEREN'T ALLOWED TO REPRESENT ME AND I COULDN'T AFFORD TO PAY FOR A LAWYER AND SO I HAD TO APPEAR IN CT WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. THIS WAS INJUSTICE, PURE AND SIMPLE.

7) IF I HAD JAYWALKED, THE POLICE VIOLATED THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW WHEN THEY CHARGED ME. BUT I HADN'T AND SO THEY VIOLATED THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF THE LAW."

4. The applicant had basically raised the same matters as he had argued before the learned magistrate and on appeal. Having heard the applicant in open court and read his written grounds, I did not consider that the case involved a point of law of great and general importance. I am of the view that the condition in section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap.484 was not satisfied. I had therefore refused to grant the Certificate for the case to go before the Court of Final Appeal.

Representation:

Mr Paul K. Madigan, SGC for DPP, for HKSAR

Applicant in person, present