HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal2009

HKSAR v. KWAN MAN YIN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR11/1997HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
  • CAAR1/1998HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
  • CAAR12/1996HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
  • CAAR6/1998HKSAR v. LAU SHIU KONG AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR6/2012HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHI
  • CAAR9/2001HKSAR v. WONG TO LEUNG
  • CACC100/1997HKSAR v. YU HON CHUN
  • CACC100/1999HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIN
  • CACC100/2000HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN
  • CACC100/2001HKSAR v. OU YANG MING CHYUAN
  • CACC100/2002HKSAR v. CHAN LAI SING AND ANOTHER
  • CACC100/2003HKSAR v. CHENG CHONG SHING
  • CACC100/2022HKSAR v. LIMBU PRASHANT
  • CACC101/1997HKSAR v. YIU KENNETH LIK KIN
  • CACC101/2001HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI PING
  • CACC101/2021HKSAR v. WONG CHI FUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/1997HKSAR v. MAN KAM SHING
  • CACC10/1998HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK
  • CACC10/2001HKSAR v. TAM KWAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/2002HKSAR v. WONG WAN SHAN
69779-EN-2010-02-04

HKSAR v. KWAN MAN YIN

HTML content

HCMA 958/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 958 OF 2009

(ON APPEAL FROM TWS 9829 OF 2009)

____________

BETWEEN

 HKSARRespondent
 and 
 KWAN MAN YINAppellant

____________

Before: The Honourable Mrs Justice V. Bokhary in Court

Date of Hearing:  4 February 2010

Date of Judgment:  4 February 2010

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

 

1.  The Appellant appeals against his conviction in the Magistrates’ Court on a charge of careless driving. He was driving a medium goods vehicle with a trailer on which was loaded a working platform. As to the facts, the prosecution’s case was that he drove under a crane bridge, that there was insufficient clearance for him to do so and that the platform therefore collided with the bridge. There was evidence on which to find those facts proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Magistrate found them so proved. There is nothing on which to fault the way in which he went about doing so.

2.  As to the law, the prosecution’s case was that, on those facts, the Appellant had driven carelessly. The Magistrate was entitled to take that view, and did so. There is no basis on which to fault his doing so.

3.  In the result, therefore, this appeal against conviction cannot succeed and is dismissed.

 (V. Bokhary)
 Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Edmond Lee, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Appellant in Person