Hksar v Lo Hing Kit

CourtCourt of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date23 Oct 2006
Judgement NumberFAMC43/2006
SubjectMiscellaneous Proceedings (Criminal)
FAMC000043/2006 HKSAR v. LO HING KIT

FAMC No. 43 of 2006

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 43 OF 2006 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM HCMA NO. 147 OF 2006)

_____________________

Between

  HKSAR Respondent
  and  
  LO HING KIT Applicant

_____________________

Appeal Committee : Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Chan PJ

Date of Hearing : 23 October 2006

Date of Determination : 23 October 2006

___________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

___________________________

Chief Justice Li:

1. On 9 December 2005, the applicant was convicted after trial by the magistrate (Ms L K Loh) of doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice. The act in question was that he had knowingly made a false representation to a police officer that he was the driver of a private car involved in a traffic accident. He was sentenced to four months imprisonment. On appeal, Nguyen J dismissed the appeal against conviction but allowed the appeal against sentence, substituting the custodial sentence with 40 hours of community service.

2. The prosecution’s case rested on the evidence of Mr Yuen Tsz Kit, an independent witness (PW1) and that of a police officer (PW2). On 13 March 2005 at about 00.30 hours, PW1 was sitting near the scene when he heard a loud bang and shortly afterwards, the car passed by slowly and stopped. Smoke was coming from the car and its left front was damaged. PW1 saw that the driver was a male foreigner and the passenger was a Chinese female. They got out of the car and the female made a telephone call. Shortly after, the applicant arrived and had a conversation with the driver. Later, the foreigner and the female left the scene leaving the applicant with the car and its keys.

3. PW2, the police officer, then arrived at the scene. PW1 heard the applicant say, “I am (the) driver” when questioned by PW2. The applicant explained to PW2 how the accident happened; that the left wheel of the car had rammed into a safety island. PW1 later told PW2 what he had seen and that he had heard that the applicant had claimed himself to be the driver to PW2. When confronted by PW2, the applicant replied “That’s correct; the one who crashed the car was not me” and “I only came here to tow the car away for somebody”. He also explained...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT