The Queen v. Yip Ming

HCMA001016/1986

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

Headnote

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

Offences by taxidrivers - level of fines - disqualification for refusing to accept hire not wrong in principle.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Magistracy Appeal No. 1016 of 1986

_____________

BETWEEN

_______________

Coram: Hon. Bewley, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 9th October, 1986

Date of delivery of judgment: 9th October, 1986

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. The appellant, a taxidriver, was convicted of :

(1)        Wilfully and without reasonable excuse refusing to accept a hire;

(2)        Failing to take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of an alighting passenger;

(3)         Behaving other than in a civil and orderly manner without reasonable excuse.

2. I dismissed his appeal against conviction, but allowed in part his appeal against sentence. I now give my reasons for the latter.

3. He was fined $750 on each summons and was also disqualified for one month. The magistrate did not say in respect of which summons he was ordering disqualification. Since he only had power to do so in respect of the first summons, I think it reasonable to assume that was his intention.

4. He purported to make the order under section 69(b)(2) of the Ordinance. This must be an error for section 69(2)(b). In fact, however, the power to disqualify for this offence is under section 69(1)(f).

5. Be that as it may, I was satisfied that disqualification was not wrong in principle for this offence. It is so common and so irritating that any reasonable measure that will persuade taxi-drivers to comply with the law must be encouraged.

6. So far as the fines were concerned, my first impression was that they were on the high side.  Counsel were unable to provide any information about the current level of fines for these offences.

7. However, bearing in mind that the average fine for careless driving is about $500, $750 seemed excessive. I therefore allowed the appeal and reduced the fines to $400, $400 and $200 respectively.

Representation:

Mr. Jimmy Ma, Crown Counsel for the Respondent

Mr. Frank Wong, instructed by Messrs. P.H. Sin & Co. for the Appellant