Hung Lee-mui v. The Queen
|
CACC000126/1972 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 126 OF 1972 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Leonard J. in Court. Date of Judgment: ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant in this case was charged in the Court below with careless driving at Fat Kwong Street and the junction of Shung Yung Street, Kowloon, on the 31st January, 1970. 2. Only 2 witnesses were called by the prosecution. The first was PC 5583 who proved that a car No. AJ3462 driven by the appellant was involved at the place in question in a collision with a public car No. AG 2591. This witness drew a sketch of the scene which the appellant signed. The second witness was the driver of public car AG 2591. He stated that on the time and the date in question he was driving a public car AG 2591 along Fat Kwong Street but could not recollect what happened. A statement which he had made to the police was put to him and he admitted his signature to it. He then said as he approached the junction of Yan Cheung Street, it seemed to him that a car hit his back. That car came out of Yan Cheung Street. At this stage without further ado, the prosecution applied for leave to treat this witness as hostile and were allowed to do so. The statement which he had made to the police then read to him and he identified it as the statement made by him with reference to the incident in question. He further stated that what was in his statement was true but he could not in fact himself recollect it at the time of the trial. This statement which was in Chinese appears to have been put in evidence without any translation. I cannot find from the record any evidence that the witness treated as hostile was hostile. His trouble was rather that he could not remember. It was never even suggested to him that he had any ulterior motive for refusing to remember. Once he had been treated as hostile his evidence was as was alleged in the additional grounds of appeal "patently unreliable". The statement, in Chinese, made by him was not evidence against the appellant. At the outset I asked the Crown counsel whether or not he supported the verdict but he found himself unable to do so. I accordingly allowed this appeal.
Representation: |