HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1996

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHUN HEI, DAVID

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
32274-EN-1996-03-27

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHUN HEI, DAVID

HTML content

HCMA000235/1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 235 OF 1996

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

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
CHAN CHUN HEI, DAVIDAppellant

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

Coram : Hon Gall, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 27 March 1996

Date of judgment : 27 March 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The Appellant was convicted on 27th December 1995 of careless driving and fined $1,500. The facts arose out of an accident which occurred in a carpark on 13th December 1994 at about 8:30 p.m. The accident occurred when a car driven by a lady had reversed out of a parking place and was travelling across the carpark to attempt to exist via an entrance to the carpark, an exit which she was not permitted to use. The Appellant was reversing out of another carpark and struck her vehicle as he did so. The learned Magistrate found that he had been careless in doing so.

2. The Ground of the appeal amongst to this: the Appellant says that the vehicle which he struck should not, and could not, by any reason and prudent driver, have been anticipated to have been in the position it was at the time of the collision and that he was in fact keeping a proper look out. His argument is that the learned Magistrate did not address her mind to the fact that the other vehicle was traversing part of the carpark to a point where she was not permitted to exist, and that a reason and prudent driver taking reasonable care would have fallen into the same predicament as the Appellant.

3. Given that the matter was never addressed by the Special Magistrate, I must have some lurking doubt as to the effectiveness of this conviction. The appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence is allowed and the sentence is quashed.

Representation:

Mr Albert Wong, S.C.C., for Crown

Appellant Chan Chun Hei, David in person

- 2 -

(T.M. Gall)
Judge of the High Court