The Queen v. Fung Tim-fook

HCMA000725/1986

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

Headnote

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

Wrong to impose disqualification as punishment for behaviour after accident.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 725 OF 1986

______________________

BETWEEN

_______________________

Coram: Hon. Bewley, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 1st August 1986

Date of delivery of judgment:

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. The appellant was convicted of careless driving, fined $750 and disqualified from driving for eight months.

2. He abandoned his appeal against conviction. I allowed in part, his appeal against sentence, by quashing the disqualification order and now give my reasons for so doing.

3. The appellant was driving his private car on a two-lane carriage way in Tuen Mun at 9.50 p.m. on 24th December last, when he came to a diversion. There was a slight curve in the road, which obsured the view of oncoming vehicles.

4. While negotiating the diversion, the appellant moved onto the wrong side of the road and was confronted by an approaching taxi. Both drivers managed to stop in time, but two vehicles behind the taxi were unable to do so and a chain collision occurred.

5. Despite the protests of the taxi driver, the appellant drove off at once, but the registration number of the car was taken and he was eventually located by the police.

6. He gave evidence and told the court that he had returned to the scene by taxi, saw that there had been an accident, but took no action and went home again immediately. The magistrate accepted this evidence: it is one of the facts found in his reasons for decision.

7. He concluded the latter thus: "He could not have failed to be aware of what harm he had brought about. If not an actual offence, it was reprehensible and irresponsible to leave the scene without leaving his name and address with those affected and I was far from impressed by his furtive return to see what had in fact occurred."

8. This was not a very bad example of careless driving. The appellant's behaviour afterwards was, however, as pointed out by the magistrate, most reprehensible. This is something he was entitled to take into account when assessing the proper fine. It is on the high side for this category of careless driving, but it cannot be said that it is excessive in all the circumstances.

9. But in my judgment it was wrong to impose disqualification as a punishment for the appellant's subsequent behaviour. The careless driving itself does not warrant disqualification. Although the appellant has received four fixed penalty tickets in the last 18 months, they were all of a minor nature and none involved an accident He has been driving since 1969 without a conviction.

10. For these reasons I felt that the disqualification order should not stand and I allowed the appeal in part accordingly.

Representation:

Miss D. M. Crebbin, Crown Counsel for Respondent

Mr. C. Smith (instructed by M/S Chan, Evans & Chung) for Appellant