The Queen v. Lam Hok-yun

HCMA001150/1986

BETWEEN:

Coram: Roberts, C.J.

Date: 17th December, 1986

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant appealed against his conviction for the offence of charging an excessive taxi fare contrary to Regulations 47(2) and 57(1) of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations, Cap. 374.

2. At the outset of the hearing against conviction, he sought leave also to appeal out of time against the sentence imposed, which was one of a fine of $500 and disqualification from holding or obtaining a taxi licence for twelve months.

3. Counsel for the Crown very fairly agreed to take no objection to the lodging of an appeal against sentence so late.

4. So far as the conviction is concerned, there was only a narrow dispute of fact remaining between the appellant and the passenger, who alleged that he had been overcharged.

5. At the conclusion of a journey in the appellant's taxi, the passenger said that he got out of the taxi to borrow some money with which to pay the taxi fare, and that he came back very quickly and gave a $10 note to the appellant, who took it and said "Are you going to receive your changer I have to go." The passenger said that he did want his change and that there was an argument between them, which ended when the appellant drove off without giving the customer his change.

6. There is evidence on which the magistrate could properly have reached those conclusions of fact, which are set out in his Statement of Findings. He said, in conclusion -

"By driving off with the change the appellant charged Mr. Lam more for that journey than he was required to pay."

7. I am not prepared to interfere with those findings of fact which essentially depend upon the view which the magistrate formed as to the relevant credibilities of the passenger and the taxi driver.

8. With regard to sentence, however, I feel obliged to take a somewhat different view from that of the magistrate of the seriousness of the offence.

9. The appellant, who is aged 29, has been a taxi driver for three years, during which period he has had seven previous convictions, all of them for minor offences, with the exception of one conviction for careless driving, for which he was fined $750.

10. It is true that, by section 69 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, it is open to a magistrate to impose disqualification for an offence against Regulation 47 of the Public Service Vehicles Regulations. Nevertheless, disqualification is primarily, though certainly not exclusively, intended to punish bad driving and to protect other road users from the activities of someone who creates hazards by his manner of driving motor vehicles.

11. I have no doubt that a disqualification of this nature, which deprives the appellant of the opportunity to earn his living as a taxi driver, as he has been doing for some years, is excessive for the offence of which he was convicted.

12. I allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent of quashing the order for disqualification, though I have left untouched the fine of $500, which Mr. Lam tells me he has already paid.

Representation:

Mr. LAM Hok-yun in person.

Mr. J.M. Gerber, Crown Counsel, for Respondent/Crown Prosecutor.