HKSAR v. BAILEY LEONIZA R. HCMA774/2007

S’s words:-

The Appellant suggested that there was on the evidence a doubt as to whether she was properly warned that she would be prosecuted for careless driving pursuant to section 68 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374. That explains why a proper warning should be given to a potential defendant.

The Appellant and the police officer did have communications but it was not sure whether the Appellant did understand what the police officer was saying to her. Further, there was no written warning of the possibility of a prosecution being given to the Appellant within 14 days from the day of the incident.

Therefore, the Appellant had been prejudiced because it was suggested that she did not make a note of what had happened and she was unable to find any witnesses to testify on her behalf.:-.

It may not be correct to say that in all careless driving cases the police officer should give a written warning of the possibility of a prosecution or otherwise no charge should be laid. However, such a technical defence can be easily avoided by not only verbally informing the driver of the possibility of a prosecution but at the same giving the driver a written warning of the same. Issuing written warning is in fact quite a routine work that should not give the prosecution too much difficulties to overcome. Further, it should be expected that in future police officers would find not only English speaking drivers but Puotonghua Chinese. We could not ensure that all police officers are fluent in English or Putonghua.

--- quote from judgment ---

Date of Judgment : 11 January 2008

10. This is an appeal against the conviction by a Magistrate of the Appellant on a charge of careless driving for which the Appellant was fined $1,600.

11. The sole ground of appeal advanced by Mr Boyton is that the Appellant should not have been convicted as there was on the evidence a doubt as to whether she was properly warned that she would be prosecuted for careless driving pursuant to section 68 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374 (“the Ordinance”)
This was a reference to the Appellant coming out of St. Joseph’s Church onto Garden Road onto the path of the other vehicle. Then the police officer said that she then said something in English which he was not quite sure about. He said that he then told her that he would later prosecute her for careless driving. He said he spoke in very simple English. He was asked what the response of the Appellant was and he said “She said something but I didn’t understand”.

12. Mr Boyton submits that there must be a doubt as regards whether the Appellant in fact understood the warning given to her by the police officer. He relies on the English case of Bentley v. Dickinson [1983] Crim.L.R. 403 where the Divisional Court in England held that the mischief to which section 179(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 which is in very similar terms to our section 68, of the Ordinance :
“… the mischief to which section 179(2) was directed was that motorists were entitled to have it brought to their attention at a relatively early stage that there was likely to be a prosecution so that they could recall and if necessary record the facts as they occurred at the time. …”

The court also held that :
“… If there was room for doubt, the court should lean towards protecting the subject rather than dealing with the mischief. …”

13. The Appellant had given evidence that at the scene she only learnt from the police officer that someone had accused her of driving carelessly. She said that she was never told that she might be prosecuted for careless driving and she only became aware of that when she received the summons in January 2007. She then posted a notice which she produced as Exhibit D4, at the entrance of St Joseph’s Church around 7 January 2007 requesting for assistance, namely for any witnesses who witnessed the incident to come forward. And she further said that if she had been informed by the police officer that she might be prosecuted for careless driving she would have returned to St Joseph’s Church that same day to locate any possible witnesses.

14. Given that there was a possibility that the Appellant did not understand what the police officer was saying to her, my view is that in this particular case the police should have sent her a written warning of the possibility of a prosecution, which the police could have done within 14 days from the day of the incident. That would have removed all doubts about whether the Appellant understood what the police officer had said to her at the scene.

15. Mr Boyton submits that perhaps despite her finding, the Magistrate might have had a lurking doubt about whether the Appellant in fact understood what was said to her by the police officer which is why she carried on to make the second finding that even if that were so the Appellant had not been prejudiced.

16. Prejudice comes into play because section 68(2) says that :
“Subsection (1) shall not apply if it appears to the court or magistrate that—
(a) the person prosecuted was not prejudiced in his defence by a failure to comply with that subsection; …”

17. The Magistrate did not give any reasons why she found that the Appellant had not been prejudiced in her defence. With respect, quite clearly, the Appellant had been prejudiced because :
(a) she apparently did not make a note of what had happened to help her to refresh her memory when the trial came along; and
(b) because of the delay, she was unable to find any witnesses to testify on her behalf.

18. I find, despite the very persuasive submission by Mr Liu, that there is a doubt about whether the Appellant understood what the police officer was saying to her at the scene, and I find that the Appellant had been prejudiced in her defence. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and I quash the conviction.