CHAU SAI-LEUNG v. THE QUEEN

CACC000339/1979

IN THE SUPREME COURT	Criminal Appeal
	1979 No. 339

-----------------

BETWEEN
	CHAU Sai-leung	Appellant
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

-----------------

Coram: Yang, J., in Chambers

Date of Judgment: 18 May 1979

 

-------------------

JUDGE'S NOTES

-------------------

 

          Conviction quashed. Sentence set aside.

          Compensation to be refunded. Order for compensation of $500 quashed.

(Signed) T.L. Yang

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

1. The appellant appeared before the trial magistrate on a summons for careless driving. He pleaded not guilty but was convicted of the offence after the hearing of evidence. The trial magistrate did not give any reasons for his verdict on the day of hearing. He was of course not obliged to.

2. This appeal was lodged after the trial magistrate had retired from the Judiciary and gone back to the United Kingdom. For reasons which are not entirely clear, the usual Statement of Findings has not been made. It is therefore impossible to determine from the record of proceedings the precise reasons for the magistrate's verdict.

3. There was at the trial in the magistrate's court only one witness for the Prosecution. The appellant also gave evidence and called no witnesses. It was therefore a case of one person's word against another, and neither was shaken in cross-examination. It was not the kind of case in which the magistrate must necessarily find the appellant guilty on the evidence.

4. Whilst it is established law that on an appeal it is primarily for the appellant to show that the trial magistrate was wrong and not for the prosecution to show that the magistrate was right, in the present case there is nothing to indicate how the trial magistrate came to the decision that he did. In a recent magisterial appeal which came before me, the usual Statement of Findings was also lacking, but the trial magistrate did give reasons for his verdict which were recorded in his notes of proceedings. As the reasons were perfectly adequate, his appeal against conviction was dismissed.

5. Following my own decision in two appeals which came before me last month, similar to the present one and also decided by the same magistrate, I hold that in the light of the evidence and in the absence of any reasons for verdict, the conviction is unsafe. I accordingly allow the appeal and quash the conviction.

6. I have considered the possibility of sending the case back to a magistrate's court for a re-trial, but have decided against it. The allegation of careless driving, even if proved, is not serious, and the Crown's evidence is not such as would afford a good chance of conviction.

 

Representation:

Mr. Sanguinetti (Director of Legal Aid) for Appellant.

Mr. Dick, Crown Counsel, for Crown.