R. v. WU IP-MING
HTML content
HCMA001188/1996
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1188 OF 1996
______________
| BETWEEN | ||
| THE QUEEN | ||
| and | ||
| WU IP-MING |
______________
Coram: Stuart-Moore, J. in Court
Date of hearing: 31 December 1996
Date of judgment: 31 December 1996
______________
J U D G M E N T
______________
1. This is an appeal against conviction from the North Kowloon Magistrates' Court. The Appellant received summonses for careless driving on 28th February 1996, and for failing to stop and report an accident which arose from the alleged careless driving. He pleaded not guilty but was convicted on 13th September 1996, by Ms. Freida Leung on all the charges. He was fined a total of $4,000 and ordered to pay $500 costs.
2. The Appellant is a taxi driver with a long record of good driving to his credit. His vehicle allegedly collided with a light goods vehicle. The taxi was observed to reverse and drive away but the registration number of the taxi involved was written down.
3. The police saw the Appellant, who is aged 40, and asked him to sign a form called a 'Pol.571'. By signing, he was indicating that he was the driver at the material time. No driver with the Appellant's long experience of the roads can possibly, I believe, be unaware of the significance of a 'Pol.571'. At the time the Appellant appeared to be in agreement that he was the driver.
4. By the time the matter reached trial the Appellant's account was that he had been playing mahjong. He called other witnesses in what turned out to be a futile attempt to cast a doubt on the prosecution's case. The Magistrate heard all of that evidence, then gave it the weight that she considered necessary in order to do justice to the case. She found that it was an invented defence by witnesses who had been called to get the Appellant out of the trouble in which he found himself.
5. This is not a re-trial. I have looked at the Magistrate's findings to see if there is anything in her approach which can be criticised. Her decision on the evidence that she had heard was entirely sensible and this appeal must be dismissed.
| (M. Stuart Moore) | |
| Judge of the High Court |
Representation:
Mr. Y.M. Liu, S.C.C. for Crown.
Appellant in person.