Wu Wai Sun v Hksar

CourtCourt of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date24 Apr 2001
Judgement NumberFAMC7/2001
SubjectMiscellaneous Proceedings (Criminal)
FAMC000007/2001 WU WAI SUN v. HKSAR

FAMC000007/2001

FAMC No. 7 of 2001

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 7 OF 2001 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM HCMA NO. 899 OF 2000)

_______________

Between
WU WAI SUN Applicant
AND
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Respondent

_______________

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

Date of Hearing: 24 April 2001

Date of Determination: 24 April 2001

_________________________

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

_________________________

Mr Justice Chan PJ :

1. The applicant is a taxi driver. He was convicted after trial of careless driving and was fined $1,300. The case against him was that his taxi

was stopped during a road block. He was directed by a police officer to drive to a roadside area for inspection. He drove to that area at about 25 kph. It was said that he drove so close to a police inspector, about 2 to 3 metres, that the inspector had to jump away in order to avoid a collision. His left hand made a slight contact with the taxi but he suffered no injury.

2. The applicant accepted in evidence that he drove his taxi to that inspection area and stopped beside the police inspector. He denied that he was careless.

3. The issues before the court were: first, what was the speed of the taxi? Second, whether the applicant had paid any attention to the condition on the road, including the presence and the position of the police inspector? Third, whether he drove in such a manner as to cause the inspector to jump aside?

4. The applicant raised 28 points which had all been raised and rejected in the courts below. He repeats them now before this Committee. These points relate to three matters generally. First, it was an unfair prosecution in that the police had failed to comply with certain procedures before prosecuting him. Secondly, it was an unfair trial in that the magistrate had wrongly permitted the witnesses to give inconsistent evidence. Thirdly, the verdict was unfair in that the magistrate had wrongly assessed the evidence.

5. The applicant had conducted a lengthy and detailed cross-examination of each of the prosecution witnesses. The magistrate had meticulously considered all the points raised. He accepted the evidence of the...

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