The Queen v. Siu Yeung-lung

CACC000444/1983

BETWEEN:

Coram: Roberts, C.J.

Date: 5th May, 1983.

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

JUDGMENT

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

[Unrepresented defendant should be told that he has right to make speeches at and of his case and in mitigation]

1. Mr. Siu appealed against his conviction for careless driving. In support of his appeal he submitted written grounds.

2. Some of these dealt with the facts of the case, putting forward a different interpretation of the evidence from that adopted by the magistrate. I have not found it necessary to reach any conclusion on these submissions.

3. However, the appellant argued that he had not been given a proper opportunity of defending himself because the magistrate had failed to permit him -

4. The record of the proceedings does not show that the appellant was afforded any of these three opportunities.

5. I do not consider that the first omission is so grave as to undermine the validity of the proceedings.

6. However, a failure to inform an unrepresented defendant that he has the right to make a final speech before conviction, or a speech in mitigation after conviction and before sentence, is a serious omission.

7. I appreciate that it is difficult for a busy magistrate to record everything which occurs during a trial, but I think it is important that he should record that an accused person has been given the opportunity to address the court before conviction and in mitigation after conviction.

8. I accepted the appellant's submission that he had not been afforded these chances, a claim which was supported by the absence of any reference to them in the record.

9. Without reaching any conclusion as to the other merits of the appeal, I shall therefore quash the conviction and order a retrial before another magistrate.

Representation:

D.J. Little, D.P.C.C. for Respondent.

Appellant in person.