Huen Hung v. The Queen

CACC000254/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.254 OF 1968

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 13 May 1968

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

JUDGMENT

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

Huggins, J:

1. The appellant was convicted of careless driving. He was fined $50 and disqualified for six months. He appeals against sentence, the argument before me being directed against the order of disqualification.

2. The appellant is a bus driver and the learned magistrate found that he drove his bus into the back of a motor-cycle when the motor-cycle slowed down near a junction. I think he also found that there were skid-marks made by the bus which were 23 feet and 27 feet 6 inches long. No other findings of fact have been made although there was evidence relating to the earlier manoeuvres and to the speed of both vehicles and also to the damage suffered by them. The absence of findings is particularly unfortunate in view of the great divergence between the evidence of the two drivers: the motor-cyclist said he had been driving at 20 miles an hour and that the bus had been following him "from behind for several minutes" whereas the appellant said he had only just started off from the bus stop at the time of the accident.

3. Although the learned magistrate has described the appellant as "engulfing a motor-cycle with his bus from behind" it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that there was nothing to indicate that this was a bad case of careless driving, a fact which his solicitor says is confirmed by the imposition of a fine of only $50. Certainly on the very scanty findings of the learned magistrate the phrase which I have cited might give a misleading impression.

4. I should be most unwilling to interfere with a sentence of disqualification where the evidence in any way indicated that appellant was a potential threat to other road users. Indeed, I think magistrates might with advantage to the public use their powers of disqualification more widely where disregard of the safety of other road users is proved. This appellant has held a driving licence since 1963 and has a clear record. There was here no finding which established more than a momentary carelessness on his part and in my view nothing whatever to support the making of an order of disqualification. I decide the case entirely on the findings which have been made, but judging solely on the record I an by no means sure that the motor-cyclist was not also at fault.

5. The appeal is allowed, the order of disqualification quashed and an order for endorsement of the appellant's licence substituted.

13th May, 1968.

Representation:

(Woo & Woo) for the Appellant

Mr. Alexander for the Crown