HKSAR v. Leung Kam Fung

HCMA000617/1999

HCMA No. 617/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 617 OF 1999

(On Appeal from SKCC No. 1267 of 1999)

____________

____________

Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice Yeung in Court

Date of Hearing: 25 August 1999

Date of Judgment: 25 August 1999

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant, Ms. Leung Kam-fung pleaded guilty to a charge of careless driving and a charge of driving a vehicle with excessive alcohol concentration. In respect of the first charge, she was fined $2,000; and in respect of the second charge, she was fined $3,000 and disqualified for a period of 18 months. She now appeals against the sentence on the basis that the period of disqualification is excessively lengthy.

2. The traffic accident was a result of carelessness on the part of the Appellant. Apparently, she entered a lane that she should not have entered and in so doing, had a minor accident with a taxi. She was subsequently found to have alcohol concentration which exceeded the permitted level by 37%. The Appellant has a clear record and the offence was said to have been caused by social drinking after work. There is no suggestion that the excessive alcohol concentration caused or contributed to the traffic accident in question.

3. Driving with excessive alcohol concentration is, of course, a serious offence as the consequence can be catastrophic.

4. In this particular case, having considered the background and the facts of the case, I am persuaded that this is perhaps not a very bad case of the type. In fact, it is perhaps fair to describe it as a case of the type of less severity. The excessive level of alcohol concentration was not too high. The Appellant has a clear record and she also pleaded guilty to the charges.

5. The traffic accident was minor and no one was injured. The accident was not the result of any recklessness on her part and the offence was committed because the Appellant perhaps failed to notice the traffic sign. Further, the alcohol concentration that the Appellant had at the time of the accident did not cause or contribute to the accident in question.

6. I am also persuaded that it is unlikely that the offence will be repeated. I am persuaded in the circumstances that there is justification for reducing the period of disqualification, particularly when a substantial fine had been imposed.

7. On the entire background of this matter, I am satisfied that a period of disqualification of 12 months would be adequate. In the circumstances, the appeal against sentences is allowed to the extent that in respect of the second charge of driving a motor vehicle with excessive alcohol concentration, the period of disqualification is reduced from 18 months to 12 months. The other orders imposed by the learned magistrate are to remain.

Representation:

Mr. Peter Cosgrove instructed by Messrs. B. Manek & Co. for the Appellant

Miss Mary Sin, G.C. for Respondent