Malay Mail - Traffic Offence Case Runaround
- From: AnakMalaysia <spammers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:15:48 +0800
TRAFFIC OFFENCE CASE RUNAROUND
29 August 2005
5 trips to court and still no hearing!
By CHONG WAN CHING
When retired teacher Kua Beng Hock attends the Sept 26 hearing of his
traffic offence case at the PJ Municipal Court here, it will be the
sixth time in a year that he will be making the trip there from his
house in Balakong. Naturally, he hopes it will be the last time he has
to do this for a case which he feels is a ?simple? one, but which, for
various reasons, was postponed and carried forward five times.
The case was also kicked back and forth between the PJ magistrate?s
court and the new Municipal Court.
The offence was that Kua, 65, allegedly drove past a red light at a
traffic junction at Taman Sierramas in Sungai Buloh on the morning of
July 10 last year for which he was issued a police summons on the
spot.
He could have paid the compound fine of RM300 at the police station
but refused to do so as, he says, the traffic light was not working
that day.
?It?s a matter of principle. That?s why I am seeking justice through
the courts,? said Kua, who is acting for himself in court and is
believed to be one of the rare cases where a motorist preferred to
fight it out in court.
?But I don?t understand why such a simple case is taking over a year
and I am fed up with going back and forth between two PJ courts.?
Kua, who taught physical education for 27 years, including at La Salle
Primary School in Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur, said he was issued a
summons on July 10, 2004, at 9am when he was on his way to conduct
swimming lessons.
?The traffic light at that junction was not working for some time and
I pointed that out to the policemen but they would not listen,? he
told The Malay Mail.
?The compound fine for that offence was RM300 but I do not want to
settle the summons because I am not guilty, so why should I pay?
?So I told the policeman that if I was issued a summons, I will pursue
the matter in court and he wrote Sept 10 as the date of hearing.
?On that day (July 10), I also snapped several photographs of the
traffic lights at that junction, from various angles, for me to use as
proof in court.?
He said his case was supposed to be heard at the PJ magistrate?s court
in PJ New Town on Sept 10, but it could not go on.
?To my surprise, a traffic policeman at the court told me that the
charge against me has not yet been filed and asked me to obtain a new
hearing date from the PJ police headquarters nearby,? said Kua, adding
that the new date given was Nov 14, 2004.
On Nov 14, no reason was given to Kua on why the case was postponed to
Dec 17.
?But on Dec 17 my case could not proceed as the police officer who
issued me the summons was unable to attend,? he said.
?On the next hearing on April 20 this year, I was told my case was
transferred to the new Municipal Court but nobody informed me about
it.
?I walked to the Municipal Court which is about 1km away from the
magistrate?s court and reached there about 12.30pm and was told by a
woman in charge that a warrant of arrest had already been issued
against me for not turning up earlier.
?I was taken to see the Municipal Court magistrate who issued the
arrest warrant and, after hearing my explanation, she cancelled it and
set a new date of hearing for July 18.?
When he went to the Municipal Court on July 18, he was told his case
had been transferred back to the magistrate?s court.
?The same day, when I got to the magistrate?s court, I was informed my
case had been postponed again to Sept 26 with the reason being that
the magistrate was away attending a course,? said Taiping-born Kua.
?I was also told that on Sept 26 at 2.30pm, my case will be heard at
the Municipal Court.?
He said the distance from his Balakong home to the PJ courts is about
35km, and estimated that he already incurred expenses totalling about
RM100, including toll charges, for the five times he attended court.
Kua said he hopes the hearing next month would be the last and, of
course, that he would be vindicated of the charge, for which the
penalty is also RM300.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Malay Mail - Traffic Offence Case Runaround
- From: adchin
- Re: Malay Mail - Traffic Offence Case Runaround
- From: pluto
- Re: Malay Mail - Traffic Offence Case Runaround
- Prev by Date: Malaysia targets mobile phone sex
- Next by Date: Re: Foreigners To Head Malaysian Companies
- Previous by thread: Malaysia targets mobile phone sex
- Next by thread: Re: Malay Mail - Traffic Offence Case Runaround
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
