HKSAR V.Leung Kam Chung Kenneth

HCMA 587/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 587 OF 2013

(ON APPEAL FROM STV 20 OF 2013)

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.This Appellant appeals against his conviction in the Magistrates Court on a charge of speeding. The charge would be proved beyond reasonable doubt if the radar speeding detection system involved is accurate and there is no substance in the Appellant’s testimony disputing the reliability of that system and denying that he was speeding. In a lengthy Statement of Findings, the Magistrate expressed himself of that conclusion. I do not propose to recite or summarize the Statement of Findings. I have taken it fully into account and I have taken fully into account the points urged by the Appellant in his grounds of appeal and his oral submissions. I do not propose to recite or summarize these grounds or submissions.

2.One of the points made by the Appellant is that it was unfair to him that it had not been disclosed to him that the expert called by the prosecution to give evidence on the radar speeding detection system has himself got a conviction for speeding. This non-disclosure is to be regretted, but I am persuaded that the Respondent is correct in the point put as follows in the Respondent’s Supplementary Submissions dated 4 December 2013:

“6. The non-disclosure of traffic record, even if done inadvertently, is highly undesirable. On the other hand, it is respectfully submitted that this is a minor conviction which does not in any way affect PW4’s credibility and reliability. The line of cross-examination would have been the same.

7. In the circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the safety of the conviction is not affected. The present appeal against conviction should be dismissed.”

3.Upon a careful consideration of the matter, I find no basis on which I would feel justified in overturning the Magistrate’s conclusion or otherwise interfering with this conviction. That being so, the appeal is dismissed.

The appellant appeared in person

Mr Franco Kuan, of the Department of Justice, for the respondent