The Queen v. Mo Wing

HCMA000746A/1985

HEADNOTE

Speeding - limitation of mandatory disqualification.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Magistracy Criminal Appeal No. 746 of 1985

___________

BETWEEN

_____________

Coram: Hon. Bewley, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 18th & 23rd September; 5th December, 1985

Date of delivery of judgment: 5th December, 1985

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to speeding. He was fined $200, disqualified for 12 months and ordered to retake the driving test.

2. This was his third conviction for speeding. The offence took place on 28th April this year and the last conviction was on 7th January, 1983. He was thus caught by section 41(2) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, under which disqualification for not less than 12 months is mandatory in such circumstances. The magistrate was also bound by section 70(1) to order that he be disqualified until he passed the driving test.

3. Section 69(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Ordinance provides that disqualification may, if the court thinks fit, be limited to the driving of a motor vehicle of the same class or description as the motor vehicle in relation to which the offence was committed.

4. The appellant is a taxi driver and this offence occurred while he was driving a taxi in Cornwall Street, Kowloon Tong. I am asked to exercise my discretion to limit the disqualification to taxis, in order to permit the appellant to earn his living by driving private cars or light goods vehicles. He has no other skills and at present is unemployed.

5. It is necessary to balance the hardship that will be suffered by the appellant, if the disqualification remains unlimited, against the need to protect the public from speeding motorists. His record is not good. Apart from the speeding conviction, the appellant has one conviction for careless driving and six convictions and fixed penalty tickets for disobeying traffic lights and signs. He also received a fixed penalty ticket for speeding in March this year. I accept that all these offences were committed while driving taxis.

6. Apart from the appellant's personal circumstances and his driving record, I am entitled to take into account how the offence occurred. The appellant's speed on this occasion  - 60 k.p.h. - was not grossly excessive considering the location. He was caught in a radar trap while driving uphill on a section of Cornwall Street that is free of intersections for approximately one kilometre. It is a dual carriageway and traffic is not usually heavy, particularly on a Sunday morning. There is no dispute that the appellant was on his way to assist a friend that had been involved in an accident.

7. Taking all these matters into account, I conclude that the public interest does not demand that the appellant be prevented from earning his living as a driver.

8. The appeal is allowed to the extent that the disqualifi-cation is to be limited to taxis.

Representation:

Mr. Simon Chiu, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.

Mr. Raymond Faulkner (D.L.A.) assigned for the appellant.