Lai Wah Keung v. The Queen
|
CACC000069/1981
----------------- Coram: Liu, J. in Court. Date of Judgment: 20th February, 1981 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving in March, 1978 and disqualified for holding any driving licence for a period of two years. In his Statement of Findings, the learned magistrate proceeded on the impression that the appellant "got his licence back" only some three months before the incident, subject-matter of the present charge and appeal. The appellant pleaded guilty. He was fined $500 and disqualified from driving altogether for a period of one year. 2. On the appellant's plea before the learned magistrate for sparing him from a total disqualification in all classes of vehicles so as not to deprive him of his means of livelihood, the learned magistrate observed that there was no evidence of any real hardship suffered by the appellant during his previous two years' disqualification. 3. Before me to-day, the appellant pleaded in mitigation with substantially more background information. In addition to his plea of guilty which reflected straightforwardness, he explained that he was travelling at only 5 m.p.h., that he had managed to stop but that the pedestrian on the crossing was only slightly injured by the inadvertent tilting of his motor-cycle. It was therefore suggested that it was more an act of control or the lack of it after the motor-cycle had come to a halt than negligent driving in the ordinary sense of the word. The law draws no such distinction except in degree of culpability. 4. The appellant further suggested that it would be inaccurate to describe him as having regained his driving licence. In fact, he never had any except for a provisional licence. 5. He was completely frank with the court, confessing to his reckless driving on the earlier occasion with a provisional licence in his panic attempt to elude police in hot pursuit. The appellant further disclosed that he had been in and out of prison for an aggregate of some eight years and that this was the first post which he had been able to hold down. The Crown was not in a position to challenge these facts for which, Mr. Leung conceded, the appellant might be given the benefit of doubt. The appellant submitted that these facts called for a reconsideration, particularly when he was in possession of a valid licence and circumstances would unlikely repeat themselves for providing any incentive for recklessness. He pleaded with the court that he had given his personal assurance to his mother who was present in court that he would hereafter conduct himself properly. He also claimed to have made some contributions towards educational expenses for a younger sister and a brother, and such voluntary contributions would have to cease if he was unable to even sustain himself on dismissal from his present employment. His employer, I was told, would have him dismissed by the end of this month as a dispath rider. 6. The impression I have gained is that his intentions are sincere. The appellant has only himself to blame for not briefing the learned magistrate on such background information. However, in my view, justice may best be done by allowing his appeal to the extent that the twelve months' disqualification period be substituted by a two months' disqualification. I hope that the appellant will not abuse the mercy shown to him by the court.
Representation: Appellant in person. Mr. S.K. Leung, counsel for the Respondent. |