HKSAR v. Wong Chor Sun

HCMA000636/2004

HCMA636/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.636 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM KCV 31 OF 2004)

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

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

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Fung in Court

Date of Hearing: 28 July 2004

Date of Judgment: 28 July 2004

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1.The appellant Wong Chor Sun was convicted after trial before a magistrate of failing to comply with the indication given by a red light when shown by light signals without reasonable excuse, contrary to Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations, Cap.374. He was fined $2,000. He now appeals against the conviction.

The prosecution case

2.On 2 October 2003, at about 7:05 a.m., the appellant was driving a light goods vehicle on the off-side lane of Hong Ning Road. A police officer on a motorcycle (PW1) was on the nearside lane of Hong Ning Road, about 30 metres behind the appellant's vehicle. The traffic was quite heavy. The appellant was travelling at 10 kph. There were other vehicles in front of the appellant.

3.When the appellant's vehicle was 20 metres from the junction with Hip Wo Street, the light changed from green to amber. The appellant did not slow down. When his vehicle was five metres away from the junction, the light changed to red. The appellant did not stop.

4.Upon being stopped by PW1, the appellant said : "I did not jump the red light. I only jumped the amber."

The defence case

5.The appellant denied jumping either amber or red light. He denied ever telling PW1 he jumped the amber light. He said PW1 was abusive and he had to dial 999.

Reasons of the Magistrate

6.The Magistrate found PW1 was an observant officer. His account was logical and consistent. He had considered the allegation of impropriety by the appellant against PW1. He found there was none which affected his credibility as a witness. He rejected the evidence of the appellant. He found the appellant had not observed the traffic lights and there was no excuse, and he found the case proved.

Grounds of appeal

7.The appellant complained that the Magistrate was impatient and the Magistrate said he was repetitive and had told him to stop. Secondly, he said that the police officer only stopped him after a few blocks away. Thirdly, the appellant said a few days ago he met a driver of a public light bus who happened to be driving behind his vehicle at the relevant time. He only found out this fact when the driver asked him what happened to him. However, he said he did not know whether the driver saw what happened or whether she was willing to be his witness. He asked this court to find that out.

Consideration upon appeal

8.This is a typical case of a magistrate having to find out what happened where there is one witness on either side. The Magistrate is empowered to make a finding upon accepting either witness. He accepted the prosecution witness upon being satisfied on the requisite standard of proof.

9.As to the alleged new evidence which the appellant said he only found out a few days ago, there was no indication as to whether it had any probative value at all. It is not up to this court to inquire into the matter.

10.Nothing raised by the appellant on appeal pointed to any error on the part of the Magistrate. There is no cause for me to disturb the findings of the Magistrate. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

Ms Mickey Fung, GC of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR

Appellant in person