S.C. 112A
4220135
2,000-9/67-B63306
Your REF. No. (128.)...in..AGC.. 1/340/610
The Assistant to the Law Officers,
Legal Department,
Central Government Offices,
(Main Wing),
Hong Kong
Dear Sir,
Fanling
With
96
+24
MAGISTRACY,
NEW TERRITORIES.
29th November, 1977.
Case No. FLS 7016 of 1977 Reg. v. CA:
Thank you for your letter of 25.11.77.
I have consulted the learned magistrates, the Court Interpreter as well as the Police Prosecutor for amplification of the court record in the above pro- ceedings and from their recollection the sequence of events were as follows:
(i) 31.8.77 -Defendant first appeared before Mr. Daniell. Information read and explained to defendant and a plea of not guilty entered. Case set down for 6.9.77 for hearing.
(ii) 6.9.77 - Defendant first appeared before Mr. Rattigan and maintain his plea of not guilty. Before the case was heard, he showed the court some photographs taken by himself and alleged that the road where the hirer wanted him to drive to was bad and unsafe for motor vehicles. such allegation the court edjourned the case for the prosecution to approach the Public Works Department for advice as to the state of the road. Case adjourned to 13.9.77.
Upon
(iii) 13.9.77 Prosecution informed the court that the Public Works Department could not form any opinion on ground that it was a private road built by the villagers in the vicinity but that, so far as the Crown was concerned, it was a road within the meaning of the law. The court then proposed a scene visit. Case adjourned to 20.9 € 77.
J
(iv) 20.9.77 Court resumed but was unable to pay a scene visit because of the heavy list on that day. There were, apart from the daily pleas, some six to seven cases due for hearing and there was only one magistrate sitting at this magistracy as Mr. Daniell was on leave. Case was then further adjourned to 27.9.77 for the scene visit. Defendant had no objection.
(v) 27.9.77 - Resumed. The learned magistrate informed the parties that it was not necessary to pay a scene visit because he happened to pass by it a couple of days ago. He saw the road. It was a concrete one and in his opinion it was suitable even for a lorry. Hence evidence was adduced for the crow and concluded. The court ruled the defendant had a case to answer and the two courses were then explained to the defendant through the Court Interpreter. Defendant elected to remain silent. At the end the defendant was convicted and fined $100.