HKSAR v. SZE KONG SANG, PETER

HCMA000071/2000

HCMA 71/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM SPV 293/1999)

____________

BETWEEN
	HKSAR	Respondent
	AND
	SZE KONG SANG, PETER	Appellant

____________

Coram: Hon Beeson J in Court

Date of Hearing: 30 March 2000

Date of Judgment: 30 March 2000

 

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

 

1. The Appellant appeals against his conviction for one offence of failing to fasten the seat belt while driving a light bus for which he was convicted in December 1999.

2. The Appellant was seen by a motorcycle police officer to stop his vehicle at traffic lights, at which time he was not wearing seat belt. The Appellant's grounds of appeal say that what the prosecution witness said was untrue. He said that he had a passenger who was sitting behind the driver's seat who was willing to testify. That witness had not been able to attend the court on the date fixed for the hearing. He further stated that the Magistrate one-sidedly believed the evidence given by the prosecution witness, without taking into consideration the evidence of the Appellant.

3. The Magistrate had given a comprehensive Statement of Findings in which he set out Appellant's evidence in detail. He said that he asked the Appellant if he had any defence witnesses, and was informed that he had a passenger who was seated behind him who was too busy to attend court on the trial day. He then inquired of the Appellant if he wished to apply for an adjournment, or to continue the proceedings on that day and was informed by the Appellant that he did not wish to apply for an adjournment and wanted the proceedings to be completed on the same day. The Magistrate went on to consider and evaluate the evidence, he accepted the evidence of the officer and rejected that of the Appellant. He did not believe the account Appellant had given of unfastening the seat belt only after he stopped the vehicle.

4. I am satisfied that the Magistrate dealt with this case properly. There was evidence before him on which I find the Appellant guilty and I do not intend to disturb his findings or the conviction.

5. This appeal against conviction is dismissed.

 

 

 

Representation:

Mr Winston Chan, GC, for DPP

Appellant in person