LEE KAM CHUEN v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000662/1972
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 662 OF 1972
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| LEE KAM CHUEN | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Huggins, J.
Date of Judgment: 31st October, 1972.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. This is about as hopeless an appeal as one could expect to find in a driving case. The Appellant was charged with careless driving: he might with reason have been charged with dangerous driving.
2. The evidence was that on a fairly sharp bend in a road which has just room for one lane of traffic in each direction the Appellant overtook another vehicle and, in so doing, crossed a double white line in the middle of the road and narrowly avoided a head on collision with an oncoming motor-car. The evidence of the driver of that oncoming motor-car and his passenger was that their vehicle stopped in order to avoid an accident and that even so the Appellant missed them by about three to eight feet. The Appellant was driving a commercial van of about 7 1/2 cwt.
3. His story was that he was following a tourist bus, that the oncoming car was zigzagging and that that car stopped and he himself stopped, apparently because he thought that the oncoming car was going to cause an accident. In fact he said that he remained on his own side of the road and the oncoming car was slightly on the wrong side. Before me, he said he was on the white line.
4. The grounds of appeal are extraordinary. First, the Appellant complains that the Prosecution witnesses could not verify what sort of vehicle was travelling in front of his; secondly, that the magistrate believed only the Prosecution witnesses; thirdly, that he had not overtaken any other vehicle and, fourthly, that the driving of "the complainant" (as he described him) was extremely dangerous.
5. The learned magistrate considered the evidence very carefully and he was satisfied that the Appellant had overtaken in the dangerous manner described by the Prosecution witnesses. There was ample evidence to justify not only a conviction for careless driving but also for dangerous driving and the Appellant is lucky, as I say, that he was not charged with dangerous driving. He has not appealed against sentence and he was probably wise.
31st October, 1972.
Representation: