刑事檢控科各律師/高級律 - Department of Justice

38
information on the last driver in the form. However, this was not
required by s 63(1)(a). The magistrate misunderstood the statutory
provisions and had very likely confused the different requirements
on a defendant under s 63(1)(a) and s 63(1)(b);
(3) In his closing speech, counsel representing the Appellant
submitted to the magistrate that the Appellant was not required by
s 63(1)(a) to give information on the last driver. However, the
magistrate had not, both in his brief oral Reasons for Verdict and
in his subsequent written Statement of Findings, clarified why he
repeatedly pointed out that there was an obligation on the
Appellant to give such information. It was very likely that the
magistrate had confused the elements of offence which the
prosecution had to prove and therefore had erred in law;
(4) The conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory.
Result - Appeal allowed. Fine refunded.