HKSAR v. HO WAN FAI

HCMA000025/2004

HCMA 25/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM KCS 7968/2003)

____________

BETWEEN
	HKSAR	Respondent
	AND
	HO WAN FAI (何雲輝)	Appellant

____________

Coram: Hon Beeson J in Court

Date of Hearing: 3 February 2004

Date of Judgment: 3 February 2004

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This Appellant was convicted in the Magistracy of Careless Driving, contrary to s. 38(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374. He was convicted after trial and now appeals against that conviction.

2. The prosecution case was that a collision took place between the vehicles driven by PW1 and the Appellant. PW1 was driving towards a roundabout, he entered the outermost lane of the roundabout intending to use the second exit to leave it. He saw the Appellant's vehicle collide with the concrete barrier of the roundabout and bounce back towards his vehicle. A police officer attended (PW2) and he made enquires of the Appellant.

3. The Appellant allegedly, made various admissions to both PW1 and PW2. In particular, he told PW2 that he lost control of his vehicle and rammed into the barrier. He also pointed out that he agreed to say that he was at fault and that he had agreed with PW1 to settle the case.

4. The ground of appeal was the general ground that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. At the appeal hearing, in more detailed reasons, the Appellant complained that the Magistrate had been illogical in dealing with inconsistencies in the evidence; that no consideration was given to the possibility that PW1's evidence might be tainted and that, overall, the Magistrate had drawn wrong inferences from the facts which favoured the Appellant.

5. The Magistrate set out his findings; the case turned on credibility and thus he had to evaluate the witnesses. He considered the material before him and assessed PW1's evidence bearing in mind that he was not an independent witness, but was satisfied that PW1's version of events was corroborated by the admissions made by the Appellant to PW2. The Magistrate did not believe the evidence of the Appellant or his witness.

6. I am satisfied, having read the Statement of Findings that there is no basis for interfering with this conviction. The Appellant claims he is a professional driver and he drives a PLB. It appears that he is disgruntled because of the conviction, but the fact that he is dissatisfied with the conviction does not mean the Magistrate was wrong. The appeal is dismissed.

	(C-M Beeson)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance

Representation:

Miss Lily Wong, SGC, of Department of Justice, for the Respondent

The Appellant, acting in person