Tang Wing Shiu v. The Queen
|
CACC000644/1972 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 644 OF 1972 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 31st October, 1972. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The Appellant was charged before the magistrate with careless driving. An accident occurred at the junction of Sau Mau Ping Road and Hiu Kwong Street. This is a T-junction on a bend. Sau Mau Ping Road has a very large bend in it at this point, it being a wide road. Hiu Kwong Street is also a wide road, which comes in to all intents and purposes at a right angle. The Appellant was driving his motor-car from Hiu Kwong Street into Sau Mau Ping Road and was proposing to turn right into that road. It was admitted by him in the lower court that Sau Mau Ping Road was a major road. Quite apart from that he was entering at a T-junction and proposing to cross traffic coming from his right. It was manifestly his duty to take the greatest care to ensure that he kept clear of all traffic coming from his right - and that would have been the case whether Sau Mau Ping Road was a major road or not. In fact a vehicle coming from his right was in collision with him. The driver of that other vehicle said that he was travelling at about 28 miles an hour near the centre line of Sau Mau Ping Road and that he was in second gear. There were apparently several learner drivers on that road. According to the second driver the Appellant drove out of Hiu Kwong Street at a speed which he estimated at 40 miles an hour. He said that the Appellant crossed him, or approached him, when he was about 20 feet away. The second driver swerved to the right and collided with the Appellant's car. 2. The Appellant's case was that he had crossed the first half of the carriageway of Sau Mau Ping Road and that for some reason unexplained the other driver crossed into the wrong lane of Sau Mau Ping Road and collided with him. 3. There was a plan produced but it is not of any great assistance. Unfortunately neither side saw fit to investigate the details of the damage to the vehicles and there is nothing in the record concerning the damage which helps me. 4. It was on this evidence that the learned magistrate had to decide whether he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant was driving carelessly, and he was so satisfied. That being so, it is quite impossible for me to say that he came to a wrong decision. It was a question Which of the witnesses, if either, he believed. He expressly said that he found the two main Prosecution witnesses to be reliable and that he did not consider that the Appellant and his brother to be witnesses of credit. There was clearly, as I have already said, a heavy responsibility on the Appellant to ensure that the manoeuvre which he was proposing to carry out could be safely carried out and in my view the learned magistrate was entitled upon his findings to convict the Appellant of careless driving. 5. The appeal is dismissed. 31st October, 1972. Representation: |