The Queen v. Law Chun Hung

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPFAL NO.384 OF 1987

_______________________

BETWEEN

_______________________

Coram: Hon. Barnes, J. in Court

Date of Hearing: 26th May 1987

Date of Judgment: 26th May 1987

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

1. The Appellant pleaded not guilty in the Magistrates Court to two charges, one of careless driving and the other of failing to stop after an accident. The evidence before the learned Magistrate was that on the day in question the Appellant was driving a light goods vehicle along Lung Hun Road in the Tuen Mun area when he overtook another light goods vehicle. During the overtaking manoeuvre he cut in front of the other vehicle so sharply that he caused the driver of that vehicle to undertake a sudden manoeuvre in order to avoid a collision. As a result the latter vehicle overturned. The Appellant, notwithstanding the fact that he had by his driving caused a very serious accident and risk of great injury to the occupants of the other vehicle, did not stop. He drove on, was stopped at a Police Road block some 200 to 300 metres ahead of where the incident occurred. He then drove off from the road block.

2. When he gave evidence in the Magistrates Court, he admitted that he did overtake a vehicle but said that he looked in his rear vision mirror after the overtaking and saw that nothing in particular had happened. He said that he did not learn about the accident until a few days later.

3. The learned Magistrate did not accept that evidence. He found that the Appellant's overtaking manoeuvre caused the other driver to make a sudden turn which resulted in his vehicle overturning. He in no doubt that the Appellant was fully aware of what had occurred. He convicted him and fined him $1,000 on each charge and in respect of the failing to stop conviction also ordered that he be disqualified from obtaining or holding a driving licence for 12 months.

4. Before me, the Appellant has abandoned his appeals against conviction and has limited himself to an appeal against sentence in respect of the failing to stop conviction and in relation to the sentence in respect of that conviction he limits himself to an appeal against the disqualification order.

5. Mr. Shum, who appears for the Appellant, on this appeal - he did not appear for him in the lower Court - submitted that the disqualification is excessive in the circumstances. In the cause of his submissions he has referred me to two cases. The first is The Queen v. Tung Tin Fook, Magistracy Appeal No.75 of 1986. There, Bewley, J. set aside a disqualification order where a driver had been involved in an incident which caused a chain collision. The offending vehicle did not collide with any other vehicle and the driver of it left the scene ignoring the protests of the drivers whose vehicles were involved.

6. The learned Magistrate in that case was of the view that the driver's conduct in leaving the scene without giving his name and address to those effected was "reprehensible and irresponsible". He therefore ordered that the driver be disqualified. Bewley J. allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the disqualification.

7. In the other case, the learned Chief Justice set aside an order for disqualification made following a conviction for careless driving in respect of a driver with no previous convictions.

8. In my view, those two decisions are of no assistance in this case. Mr. Shum has argued that if the Appellant's driving was of such a nature as to warrant disqualification that the learned Magistrate would have made such an order in respect of the careless driving charge. Since he did not, therefore, he must have been of the view that the driving was not such as to call for the making of such an order. Therefore, by ordering disqualification on the second charge the Magistrate was in fact saying, so the submission goes, that anyone who contributed to an accident and drove off must be disqualified. I do not accept that submission. It seems to me that the combination of the two circumstances in this case, namely the careless driving plus the callous attitude displayed by the Appellant driver in leaving the scene after having contributed to such a serious accident was conduct warranting the order which the learned Magistrate made in this particular case. I, therefore, am not convinced that the Magistrate was wrong in deciding to impose the disqualification order harsh though its effects are on the Appellant who is a professional driver. I, therefore, must dismiss the appeal.

Miss Crebbin, C.C. for the Crown.

Mr. Erik Shum (Arthur K. H. Chan & Shum) for the Appellant.