Yuen Yat Chuen v. The Queen

Case No.CACC 772/1979

Court

Court of Appeal

Date30 Aug 1979

Judge—

Case Document

100%

CACC000772/1979

IN THE SUPREME COURT	Criminal Appeal
	1979 No. 772

BETWEEN
	YUEN YAT CHUEN	Appellant
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Trainor, J.

Date of Judgment: 30 August 1979

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. Yuen Yat-chuen was convicted in the Magistrate's Court of permitting to be used a taxi which emitted excessive smoke, against which conviction he now appeals.

2. A police officer gave evidence of testing this car by the use of a Hartridge Smoke Meter. A Hartridge Smoke Meter is the only type of apparatus that has been authorized in the Fourth Schedule to the Road Traffic (Construction and Use) Regulations pursuant to regulation 165(A). The police constable who gave evidence said that he told the driver of the taxi he wanted to check "the exhaust pipe" for excessive smoke. He gave no evidence whatsoever as to his knowledge or experience in the use of the apparatus he used. He told the Court that he made certain readings having "inserted the jet of the smoke meter into the exhaust pipe". In a limited examination of the officer by the prosecuting officer and the Court it was quite clear that the witness did not know very much, indeed, if anything, about the use of this meter and his answers indicate that:

"Q.	How many meters on the machine are there to read, you have mentioned pressure and volume.
A.	There is 1 meter to measure the amount.
Q.	What does it measure - what units.
A.	I don't know. What I learnt from the expert was that when it exceeds 65 mm.
Q.	What sort of unit.
A.	I don't know."

3. After that informative piece of evidence examination-in-chief was resumed.

"Q.	What is the name of the unit on the meter.
A.	I don't know. There is a needle to show the degree.
Q.	What you do when the record registered 100.
A.	Told the driver I would summon him for excessive smoke."

4. This offence, like all offences, must be proved to satisfy the Court beyond reasonable doubt that the person accused committed the offence. Where part of the evidence refers to the use of a particular type of apparatus to establish the offence and that apparatus requires some skill or experience in or knowledge of the use of it it must be shown that that person had that skill, knowledge or experience. In this case there was no such evidence and in the circumstances I allow the appeal.

(J.P. Trainor, J.)

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Mr. Noble, c.c. for Crown/Respondent