The Queen v. Lui Chung

CACC001532/1983

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1532 OF 1983

__________________

BETWEEN:-

________

Coram: The Honourable Mr. Tustice Jones in Court.

Date of hearing: 28th December 1983

Date of delivery of judgment: 28th December 1983

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of careless driving at the Causeway Bay Magistrate's Court on the 3rd November 1983. He was fined $500.00 and disqualified from driving for 6 months.  Upon an application for review the sentence was confirmed. The appellant appeals against the sentence of disqualification.

2. The agreed facts reveal that on the 5th July 1983 at 10.35 a.m. the appellant was driving his taxi along Hollywood Road by a slip road to Central Police Station opposite to Pottinger Street when he overtook on the wrong side of the road two queues of stationary vehicles. As he approached Arbuthnot Road which was a blind bend he forced a police motor cycle to brake sharply and swerved left to avoid a collision. The appellant also braked sharply and swerved to his left and avoided a collision by about 3-5 feet. The appellant in mitigation claimed that the traffic was very congested and that he tried to get round a hard-cart.

3. Quite clearly as was found by the learned Magistrate this was a serious case of careless driving. In fact upon the facts the appellant could have been charged with dangerous driving.

4. The appellant is aged 56. He has held a driving licence for 30 years and has been a taxi driver for 22 years. He has one previous conviction for careless driving in 1981 when he was fined $200.00.

5. Miss Sze Kin in her submission for the appellant cited two authorities with reward to sentences of disqualification imposed in eases of careless driving, viz. Wong Po Tung v. The Queen Cr. App. No. 695/1980 and Tam Shing Kai v. The Queen Cr. App. No. 543 of 1982. In the first case a period of disqualification for 3 months from driving all classes of vehicles was varied to a restriction for driving taxis only whilst in the other case a period of disgualification of 6 months was reduced by the Magistrate on review to 4 months and on appeal to 2 months. Both cases were described to be bad.

6. In the instant case no injury was caused. Hardship has obviously been caused to the appellant for he is a professional driver and is the sole breadwinner for his wife and four children. I consider that this was a proper case to impose a period of disqualification, but that in all the circumstances the period was too long. I shall vary the period of disqualification to 2 months with the result that the appeal against sentence is allowed to that extent.

Representation:

Mr. Winston Leung (Legal Department) for Respondent.

Miss Sze Kin (Yung, Yu & Yuen) For Appellant.