The Queen v. Leung Pui Ming

HCMA000337/1988

1988, No. 337

-------------------------

H E A D N O T E

--------------------------

Taxi driver seriously overcharging tourist - bad case imprisonment and disqualification merited for first offender.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 337 OF 1988

----------------------------

BETWEEN

-----------------------------

Coram: Hon. Bewley, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 8th June 1988

Date of delivery of judgment: 8th June 1988

-----------------------

J U D G M E N T

-----------------------

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two charges at Western Magistrates Court before Mr Gill. On the first charge, of obtaining money by deception, contrary to Section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, he was sentenced to six months imprisonment and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for two years. On the second charge, of misleading a police officer by giving false information, contrary to section 64B of the Police Force Ordinance Cap. 232, he was sentenced to two months imprisonment concurrent. There is no appeal against the latter conviction.

2. On the evening of the 12th April, 1988 a Canadian tourist boarded the appellant's taxi at Kai Tak Airport and asked him to take him to the Hilton Hotel When they arrived, the appellant .stopped at the side of the. Hotel instead of driving normally to the main. door The appellant demanded $650, although the meter showed the correct fare to be $54.50. The tourist handed over $650, but asked for a receipt whereupon the appellant gave him a receipt containing a false taxi registration number.

3. Meanwhile, the hotel bell-boy came to get the luggage and asked the tourist about the taxi fare. The appellant then ran to his taxi and drove off. The rear number plate was covered by a piece of cloth, but the bell-boy ran after the taxi and caught up with it when it stopped at traffic lights. He lifted the cloth and read the number.

4. The appellant was arrested next day, but he told the police that his taxi had been driven by a colleague the previous day and he was then released. However on the 14th April, the appellant returned to the Hilton Hotel with a friend, to whom he had given $650 with instructions to return it to the victim. When they approached the hotel security officer, they were detained and the appellant was later arrested.

5. The appellant is married with 3 children. He has seven previous convictions, for gambling and for cruelty to children.

6. I agree with the magistrate that this was a serious matter affecting the reputation of Hong Kong, as a tourist centre and that of its taxi drivers. A prison sentence was richly merited, both as punishment and as a deterrant to other taxi drivers, in spite of the fact that this is the appellant's first offence of dishonesty. On the other hand I agree with Mr Wong for the appellant, that the magistrate has given in sufficient credit for the appellant's plea and return of the money. It may be that the plea was prompted more by the strength of the prosecution case than by remorse but never the less credit must be given for the saving of court time. I think, in the circumstances, that six months was excessive and I reduce the sentence to one of four months imprisonment.

7. Mr Wong also complains that the order for disqualification will prevent the appellant from earning his livelihood, on his release from prison in the only occupation he knows. There is apparently no power to limit the disqualification to taxis.

8. The power to disqualify is given by Section 69(1)(h) of the Road Traffic ordinance, Cap. 374. "A person may be disqualified for such period as the court thinks fit on conviction for any offence during the course of which, or in order to escape apprehension for which, he uses a motor vehicle". The magistrate says he had jurisdiction to disqualify because the appellant used his vehicle to escape from the scene. The appellant also used the taxi in order to commit the offence.

9. Disqualification is primarily a preventive measure, but also contains a punitive element. I agree that it is a severe punishment that the effect of this order will be to require the appellant to take up a different form of employment. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the facts of the case demand that the appellant be prevented from driving a taxi for a substantial period. As it is not possible to limit the disqualification to taxis, I am satisfied that the order was a proper one. The appeal is dismissed

Representation:

Mr Harris, Crown Counsel, for Respondent.

Mr H.Y. Wong, assigned by D.L.A., for Appellant