Yu Chi Yuen v. The Queen
|
CACC000925/1975 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 925 OF 1975 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 11th November 1975. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The Appellant appeals by leave of the Chief Justice out of time against his convictions for careless driving and failing to report an accident. These proceedings were commenced by summonses and the summonses were heard together, although the consent of the Appellant does not appear to have been obtained. 2. There was evidence that the driver of a parked lorry noticed that another vehicle had struck his lorry: he heard a bump. It does not appear to have been a very serious accident but he saw a van passing him and assumed that that was the vehicle which had struck him. The evidence was that he gave chase but he was never asked how he gave chase - whether in his own vehicle, in another vehicle or on foot. He failed to catch the other vehicle but obviously obtained its number and from that the Appellant was traced. The driver said that it cost him $945.45 to repair his vehicle, but no evidence was given as to the nature of the damage. 3. The other evidence against the Appellant was a statement which he made to the police in which he stated, in answer to a question, that some scratch marks on his vehicle were from an unknown cause. His evidence before the magistrate and his assertion to me have been that those scratches were caused by a tram with which he collided some time earlier. He said that he did not remember having been at the spot at all and in effect said there was no sufficient evidence to justify a conviction. Before me he has further alleged that the police altered his statement after he signed it. However, he concedes that the substance of the statement is correct and in my view the passage which he says has been inserted is of no importance. 4. In my view there was sufficient evidence to justify a conviction for careless driving. Mr. Duffy on the appeal has very fairly told me that he has doubts about the cost of the repairs, because, according to the statements in his possession, the damage to the other lorry was very slight and consisted of scratches. If that be correct it is possible that the Appellant was unaware of an accident. On this state of the evidence I do not feel the conviction on the charge of failing to report is safe and I shall quash that conviction and set aside the fine of $100 thereon, but I shall make a formal order for a retrial which the prosecution may or may not see fit to proceed with. 5. As to the order for compensation there is no appeal. I can say only that I have my doubts about the propriety of that order. It may be that the Appellant could obtain leave to appeal out of time against that order, but that is a matter for him to consider. 6. The appeal is allowed to the extent I have indicated. 11th November 1975. Representation: |