HKSAR v. Fu Wing Chi

HCMA001230/2003

HCMA 1230/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1230 OF 2003

(ON APPEAL FROM STS 3134/2003)

____________

____________

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge E Toh in Court

Date of Hearing: 11 May 2004

Date of Judgment: 11 May 2004

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.The Appellant was summonsed for the offence of failing to display the 'P' plate while driving a motorcycle. There was no dispute before the learned Magistrate that the Appellant was a probationary driver and he was the driver of the motorcycle at the material time. The police officer who testified on behalf of the prosecution said that the Appellant had not displayed the 'P' plate on his motorcycle at the time when he was stopped.

2.And that is why the police officer initially had issued a Defendant with a fixed penalty ticket for speeding. Subsequently when he discovered that the Appellant's licence was a probationary one the fixed penalty ticket was cancelled and a summons issued against the Appellant for speeding.

3.After the prosecution witness had given evidence, the Appellant had elected to give evidence and informed the learned Magistrate that at the time when he was stopped, the 'P' plate was on his motorcycle.

4.After hearing the evidence the learned Magistrate was satisfied that the police officer was telling the truth. The learned Magistrate also found as a fact that the motorcycle of the Appellant at the time when it was stopped was not displaying the 'P' plate.

5.The learned Magistrate did not believe the evidence of the Appellant. The learned Magistrate also considered that if the 'P' plate had been displayed on the motorcycle, it would have been impossible that the police officer would have failed to notice that.

6.And the learned Magistrate also rejected the Defendant's allegation that the police officer was covering up his failure to notice the 'P' plate by falsely accusing him of not displaying it.

7.This is a classic one to one situation where there is one witness for the prosecution saying something and the witness for the defence saying something to the contrary.

8.The learned Magistrate heard the evidence and came to his findings of fact and I am not in a position to say his conclusion on the evidence is wrong or should not have been made, as I have not had the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses myself. I have therefore no reason to disturb the finding of the Magistrate.

9.So, the appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

Miss Mary Sin, SADPP, of Department of Justice, for the Respondent

The Appellant, in person