CHOW HING-LEUNG v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000811/1977
| IN THE SUPREME COURT | |
| Criminal Appeal | |
| 1977 No. 811 |
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| CHOW HING-LEUNG | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Cons, J.
Date of Judgment: 14th September 1977.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. This appellant was convicted of three traffic offences. They all arose from the same incident and were tried together. The decisions turned purely upon the credibility of the witnesses. There was direct and irreconcilable conflict between them. Two police officers for the Crown. The appellant and a witness, who on the face of it was independent, for the defence. The appellant is a public light bus driver and his witness claimed to be at the time a passenger in his bus.
2. Several criticisms were made in support of the appeals. Only one has validity. At the close of the appellant's own evidence in chief the learned magistrate expressly did not trouble the inspector appearing for the Crown to cross-examine. He noted down that the Crown's right to cross-examine was reserved. Now I have no doubt that the magistrate considered this no more than an indication that at that stage he was not prepared to give credence to the evidence of the appellant by itself and that he approached the evidence of the following witness with a completely open mind. However, the appellant would not have seen it that way. It would seem to him that the magistrate had already decided to convict him whatever his witness might say. That impression would not be changed by the magistrate's exclusion of cross-examination of the witness as well. The appellant now nurses a grievance and to my mind it is a justifiable grievance. I appreciate only too well the pressures of a busy magistrate's list and the need to save time wherever this may be possible. But procedures which lead to a sense of injustice must be avoided. It was for this reason that I made my order. The Crown did not wish for a retrial and I allowed the appeals, quashed the convictions and set aside the sentences thereon.
Representation:
Mr. David Yam (Director of Legal Aid) assigned for the appellant.
Mr. G.W. Alderdice, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.