Wong Po Tung v. The Queen
|
CACC000695/1980 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 695 OF 1980. -----------------
----------------- Coram: Bewley, J. in Court. Date of Judgment: 23rd September, 1980. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant was convicted of careless driving on the 11th August this year. He was fined $400 and disqualified from driving all classes of vehicles for three months. He now appeals against sentence. 2. It was a bad case. The appellant was driving a taxi down Hill Road in Western District. When he came to the intersection at Queen's Road West, he turned left in contravention of a sign that directed traffic to continue straight ahead across Queen's Road. 3. There was a light-controlled pedestrian crossing in Queen's Road to the west of the junction. When the appellant turned left, several pedestrians on this crossing were forced to scatter to avoid being run down. He was stopped by a police constable on motor cycle patrol and told he would be prosecuted. 4. The appellant's defence was that his way ahead was blocked by heavy traffic and, to avoid causing an obstruction to traffic in Queen's Road, he had to turn left. 5. The learned magistrate accepted the police constable's evidence and rejected that of the appellant. 6. Mr. Wong, for the appellant, does not complain about the amount of the fine. He submits, however, that the facts do not justify disqualification. 7. I accept that disqualification should be ordered only in a serious case of careless driving. But, in my judgment, this was such a case. It was fortunate that no one was badly hurt. It was, moreover, not the result of a decision made in the agony of the moment. The appellant must have made a conscious decision to turn left before he reached the junction. 8. This is not the first time that the appellant has been convicted of an offence involving disobedience of a road sign. There are, therefore, no grounds for leniency. I am satisfied that the sentence was not wrong in principle and I am not disposed to interfere. 9. The only thing that causes me concern is that the appellant is a professional driver and has, I am informed, been unemployed since his conviction. I think, in the circumstances, that restriction of the disqualification to taxis will be a sufficient deterrent and I so order.
Representation: Mr. P.W. Wong (DLA) for appellant. Mr. Plowman, C.C., for respondent. |