HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1996

THE QUEEN v. PAK KWAN HO

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
16594-EN-1996-02-15

THE QUEEN v. PAK KWAN HO

HTML content

HCMA000081/1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.81 OF 1996

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

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
PAK KWAN HOAppellant

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

Coram : Hon Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 9 February 1996

Date of handing down judgment : 15 February 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This was an appeal against a conviction for speeding. The method of assessing the speed of the appellant's vehicle was by the use of the frozen speedometer on a police motor cycle. The appellant's speed was assessed at 114km/hr. In the course of the appeal, I was advised that when dealing with radar speed checks, the police invariably make a 10% allowance for error. This matter was not considered in this case. It seemed to me that the learned Magistrate ought to have made an allowance for error of at least 5% in this case. She did not do so. Had she done so, she could have found that the appellant's speed was less than 110km/hr. That would have meant that the appellant's speed could be assessed between 15 and 30km/hr more than the speed limit. That speeding offence attracts a three rather than a five points penalty. I therefore allowed the appeal, and substituted the finding that the appellant was driving at a speed 15 to 30km/hr in excess of the speed limit.

2. Because of that, I also felt it right to remove the order for costs. I therefore allowed the appellant to appeal against sentence out of time and removed the order for costs.

Representation:

Mr Wesley W.C. Wong, S.C.C., for Crown

Appellant (Pak Kwan Ho) in person

(J.M. Duffy)
Judge of the High Court