Wong Wai Lim v. The Queen

CACC000364/1974

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 364 OF 1974

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

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 27th June 1974.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The Appellant was charged before the magistrate with driving a private car for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and, arising from that charge, there was a further charge of driving a motor vehicle without third party insurance. The Appellant appeals against both conviction and sentence.

2. This is a common type of case, where police officers were looking out for pak pai drivers. They gave evidence that the Appellant drove a car up to them, stopped, and asked if they wished to be taken anywhere. They boarded and, when they reached the destination which they had indicated, they were both asked for money. They paid and then arrested the Appellant.

3. The Appellant gave no evidence and called no witnesses. It was therefore for the learned magistrate to decide whether or not he believed the police officers. He saw no reason to think they were lying and accepted their evidence. In the circumstances it is impossible for me to say that he was wrong.

4. Turning to the matter of sentence, however, one finds that the magistrate imposed fines of $600 on each charge, with the compulsory disqualification on the insurance charge. There was very little information before the magistrate as to the Appellant's means: the Appellant stated that he was poor, but there was evidence before the Court that he was the registered owner of the vehicle which he was driving. The Appellant tells me that he was formerly employed as a salary of $700 a month, but the expenses which he has list considerably a ceeded that figure so I hesitate to accept his statement of his income at its face value. The reason for the size of these fines was that this was a second conviction, and the learned magistrate doubled what he normally imposed on a first conviction. Now it is clear that a fine must be related to some extent to the means of the convicted person. I do not say that a fine of $600 on a charge of driving a private car for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward can never be appropriate but it is certainly very heavy and it is not without significance that on his first conviction the Appellant was fined $60 (or so I understand from the Statement of Findings, although the magistrate had no direct confirmation of this - the Appellant was certainly fined only $60 for the insurance offence on the previous occasion and it is unlikely the sentence for carrying passengers for hire or reward was heavier).

5. In my view the proper fine on the first charge here was $100. The insurance offence was very much more serious, but one must also bear in mind the compulsory disqualification and the fact that the learned magistrate, in my view quite fairly, decided that the disqualification must be a complete disqualification on this occasion. The fine on the second charge will be reduced to $400. Therefore a sum of $700 must be repaid to the Appellant.

27th June 1974.

Representation: