The Attorney General v. Tse Tak on

Case No.HCMA 1152/1986

Court

High Court CFI

Date—

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCMA001152/1986

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

HEADNOTE

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

Failing to display vehicle licence -- expired licence insufficient.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1152 OF 1986

__________

BETWEEN

	The Attorney General
	and
	TSE TAK ON

___________

Coram: Hon. Bewley, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 23rd December 1986

Date of delivery of judgment: 23rd December 1986

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. This is an appeal by the Attorney General, by way of case stated, from a decision of Mr Yanne in Causeway Bay Magistrates Court.

2. The respondent was summonsed for failing to display a vehicle licence in such a manner that it was clearly visible from the front of the vehicle, contrary to regulation 25(1) of the Road Traffic (Registration and Licensing of Vehicles) Regulations.

3. The magistrate found that the respondent was the owner of the vehicle, that the licence was properly displayed on the left upper corner of the front windscreen, but that it had expired twelve days earlier.

4. He was of the opinion that the appellant had complied with the regulation, since the latter did not specifically state that the licence to be displayed should be a valid licence, and dismissed the summons. At a subsequent application for review, he refused to alter his decision.

5. It is perfectly true that the word "valid" does not appear in regulation 25(1), though it did appear in a corresponding regulation repealed in 1984. The magistrate presumably thought that this omission meant that the display of an invalid licence satisfied the regulation.

6. However, paragraph (2), which is a new provision, states:

"(2) Where pursuant to regulation 21(11) or regulation 59(6) a receipt issued by the Commissioner is deemed to be a valid vehicle licence, the receipt shall be displayed

(a)	in the appropriate place and manner specified in paragraph (1); and
(b)	in such form and manner as the Commissioner may specify on the receipt."

7. Regulation 21(11) provides:-

"Where due to circumstances beyond his control the Commissioner is unable for the time being to issue a vehicle licence under paragraph (8), the receipt issued by him for the payment of the appropriate licence fee under this regulation shall be deemed for the purposes of these regulations to be a valid vehicle licence in place of the vehicle licence to be issued under paragraph (8), until such vehicle licence is issued or the expiry of a period of 30 days after the issue of the receipt, whichever is the earlier."

8. Paragraph (4) of this regulation stipulates that a motor vehicle shall be licensed for the period stated in the application. Paragraph 8 provides that the Commissioner shall issue to the registered owner "for display on the vehicle in accordance with regulation 25 a vehicle licence in a form and containing the particulars specified by the Commissioner".

9. Finally the schedule to the Fixed Penalty (Criminal Proceedings) Regulation states that the offence contrary to regulation 25 is "failing" to display valid licence".

10. For these reasons - and as a matter of common sense - I am satisfied that the magistrate's interpretation of regulation 25(1) is contrary to the intention of the legislature. The appeal is therefore allowed.

11. Counsel for the appellant has indicated that the Crown does not propose to proceed further against the respondent. Accordingly my decision is remitted to the magistrate for his information only.

( E. de. B. Bewley )

Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr G.J. Lugar Hawson, Senior Assistant Crown Prosecutor for Appellant

Respondent : Present in person