THE QUEEN v. LAI TAI KWONG

HCMA000917/1986

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 917 OF 1986

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

BETWEEN

	THE QUEEN	Respondent
	AND
	LAI Tai-kwong	Appellant

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

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Hopkinson

Date of Hearing: 2 October 1986

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 2 October 1986

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. The Appellant appealed against his conviction for setting down passengers in a restricted zone contrary to regulation 14(6) of the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations, Cap. 374.

2. The incident occurred at 9.20 p.m. on 27th December 1985 at the traffic concourse alongside Telford Market. It is not in dispute that the Appellant set down a passenger from his taxi near the market at a point where there were (1) a single yellow line painted along the side of the road, and (2) two traffic signs erected nearby on the pavement.

3. The first of these road signs was a prohibited-zone sign, prohibiting vehicles from entering, except for taxis and franchised buses. The second sign was a restricted-zone sign, prohibiting vehicles from stopping on either side of the sign.

4. At the time of the offence, and again during the hearing of the case, the Appellant concentrated on the first sign - the prohibited-zone sign. This bore the subscription "Except taxis", and the Appellant seems to have tried to convince, first the police officer and then the Magistrate, that the exception permitted taxis to enter the zone and set down passengers there.

5. At the hearing, the Appellant tried to do this in the course of his cross-examination of the police officer, and the learned Magistrate then explained to him that the sign only allowed taxis to enter the zone and that it did not permit passengers to be set down.

6. It seems the Appellant refused to accept this interpretation and when called on to make his defence he declined to give evidence. Having been interrupted in the course of his cross-examination, he may have thought he could say no more.

7. But what seems to have been overlooked is that the setting-down of the passenger occurred where the road was marked, not with a double yellow line, but with a single yellow line. This means that the road is a no-stopping zone during certain periods, and it does not mean that stopping there is prohibited absolutely at all times.

8. If an offence was committed, it was because the Appellant had stopped on a yellow line. But this seems to have been completely overlooked.

9. The Appellant now argues that the restricted periods are from 7 - 10 a.m. and 4 - 7 p.m. As the offence took place at 9.10 p.m., he maintains that the restrictions did not apply and he committed no offence.

10. This point was not argued before the Magistrate. Whether he would have taken the point, if his cross-examination had not been interrupted, I do not know. However, the single yellow line should have drawn attention to the fact that stopping is not absolutely prohibited.

11. In fact the single yellow line is not consistent with the nearby, second road sign which indicates that vehicles are prohibited from stopping there absolutely and without any exception.

12. However, the Appellant sought to claim that there is another no-stopping sign at the start of the yellow line, off the sketch-plan and to the right, and that this bears a time plate signifying that the road is a no-stopping zone between 7 - 10 a.m. and 4 - 7 p.m.

13. This was in effect an attempt to adduce new evidence. So I asked Crown Counsel if he wanted further time to check this assertion. Mr. Lavac took instructions and then said that a single yellow line usually means that the zone is a no-stopping area between 7 - 10 a.m. and 4 - 7 p.m. - which is what the Appellant was contending. He also admitted that the road sign was unclear and contradictory, in so far as it purported to prohibit stopping at any time, whereas the associated single yellow line indicated that the road was only a no-stopping zone during certain restricted periods.

14. In view of this, he thought that the Appellant should be given the benefit of the doubt and he did not seek to support the conviction.

15. If the zone was a no-stopping area only during the periods suggested, the Appellant committed no offence by setting-down a passenger at 9.10 p.m.

16. For these reasons I allowed this appeal against conviction, on the grounds that there was no sufficient evidence to support the conviction, and I ordered that the sentence be set aside and that the fine and costs be remitted to the Appellant.

	( J.E. Hopkinson )
	Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. P. Lavac C.C. for Crown

Appellant in person