Chung Ping Chuen v. The Queen

CACC000869/1980

Proof of identity - careless driving - identity of driver - not established by appearing to summons.

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

Coram: O'Connor, J. in Court

Date of Judgment: 21st November 1980

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an appeal against conviction for careless driving which resulted in a traffic accident. The driver of the one vehicle was a prosecution witness and gave evidence which established careless driving on the part of the other driver. He could not identify the other driver. The learned magistrate in his findings adverts to that fact and goes on to say

"I was nevertheless satisfied as to appellant's identity as he had answered to his summons."

2. The learned magistrate was in error in considering that sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that the appellant was the person who drove carelessly. Appearance in answer to a summons is evidence that the person who appears is the person to whom the summons is directed, but is not evidence that can by itself establish that he was the driver, see Jones v. Carter (1956) Criminal Law Review 275, Saunder v. Johns (1965) Criminal Law Review 49, Reg. v. Chiu Hon Hung (1965) H.K.L.R. 244, Crew v. Scott (1976) Criminal Law Review 381. However there was other undisputed evidence which clearly proved the defendant was the driver and I therefore dismissed the appeal.

Representation:

Appellant in person

Miss M.A. Srabtree, Crown Counsel, for the Crown/prosecution