Attorney General v. Ma Yee-chan

Case No.CACC 631/1978

Court

Court of Appeal

Date02 Aug 1978

Judge—

Case Document

100%

CACC000631/1978

IN THE SUPREME COURT

	Criminal Appeal
	1978 No. 631

BETWEEN
	ATTORNEY GENERAL	Appellant
	and
	MA YEE-CHAN	Respondent

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

Coram: Cons, J.

Date of Judgment: 2nd August, 1978.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an appeal by way of case stated brought by the Attorney General. The respondent is a taxi driver. He had been charged under the Road Traffic (Taxis, Public Omnibuses, Public Light Buses and Public Cars) Regulations with an offence against Reg. 28(2). This provides:

"No registered owner or driver of a taxi shall charge for the hiring of the taxi a fare exceeding the appropriate scale of fares set forth in the Third Schedule."

Basically the appropriate fare in any given case is a computation of time and distance. In the present instance the Crown sought to prove what was the appropriate fare by reference to the amount indicated on the meter at the end of the journey. The learned magistrate took the view that this was not sufficient. He felt that there should have been evidence of the actual distance travelled. He took this view because there is nothing in the Regulations or in the Road Traffic Ordinance or anywhere else which provides specifically that the meter reading shall be evidence. With every respect to him that is too fine an approach. The very purpose for which the meter is installed in the taxi is to show what is the proper fare. There is, of course, the possibility that it may record incorrectly. This is acknowledged in Reg. 22(4). But generally speaking inaccuracy is a remote possibility. Meters must be inspected every six months by the authorities and must remain sealed throughout their use. In my view a reasonable magistrate would be entitled to assume that the fare recorded on the meter at the end of a particular journey was in fact the proper fare for that journey and, indeed, I would expect him to do so unless there were some positive indication to the contrary.

2. At the hearing of this appeal both counsel put forward arguments based on the actual wording of various definitions and sections within the Ordinance and the Regulations. They were interesting and well prepared arguments but I do not think they take the matter any further.

3. The two questions framed in the case by the learned magistrate were as follows:

"(i)	Was I correct in finding that there is no provision in the said Regulations or in the principal Ordinance or otherwise providing that the fare indicated on the taximeter of a Hong Kong and Kowloon Taxi is evidence of the appropriate scale of fares set forth in the Third Schedule of the said Regulations?
(ii)	If the answer to the first question is Yes, was I correct in holding that it would therefore be necessary for the prosecution to call evidence of the actual distance covered by the taxi in order to prove what was the appropriate fare?"

My answer to the first is "Yes", and to the second "No". Counsel for the Crown asks for no further order.

Representation:

Mr. G. Alderdice, Crown Counsel, for the appellant.

Mr. M. Faulkner (Director of Legal Aid) assigned for the respondent.