HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1996

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG SHUI WAH

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
16596-EN-1996-02-15

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG SHUI WAH

HTML content

HCMA000083/1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL No.83 of 1996

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

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
CHEUNG SHUI WAHAppellant

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

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 careless driving. The facts were that a taxi was being driven south bound uphill along Lei Tung Estate Road. The appellant, a police sergeant, was driving a government vehicle in the opposite direction downhill. There is a bend in the road and the carriageways are separated by continuous double white lines. It was the taxi driver's contention that the appellant drove his vehicle across the double white lines and caused it to collide in a minor way with his vehicle. The appellant gave evidence denying that this was the position, and accusing the taxi driver of having crossed the double white lines.

2. This, therefore, was a one on one situation. If anything, the probability was that it was the taxi driver who crossed the double white lines and not the appellant. However, the point in the appeal is simply this, that once again I have to say that this Magistrate has not given sufficient reasons for her findings. It is simply not enough to say "I accepted the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses and rejected what the Appellant said". Reasons must be given for coming to these findings. As none were given here, I had to allow the appeal.

Representation:

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

Appellant Cheung Shui Wah in person

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