Li Kam-lau v. The Queen
|
CACC000713/1969 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 713 OF 1969 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 22 October 1969 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant pleaded guilty to careless driving. The circumstances were that at five past midnight on a Sunday morning the appellant was driving along Pokfulam Road. There is a discrepancy in the record as to the direction in which he was travelling but I am told that he was in fact travelling towards Aberdeen. He was smoking a cigarette. He dropped the cigarette and, instead of stopping in order to recover it, he took his eyes off the road and lost control of his vehicle. The car mounted the pavements on the nearside, struck the hillside and rebounded. At that point he came into collision with some pedestrians walking along the road. One of these was killed and another injured. The weather was fine and the condition of the road was good. There is no doubt that this was careless driving and the consequences were calamitous. 2. The learned magistrate imposed a sentence of 6 weeks' imprisonment and disqualification for 3 years. Counsel for the appellant had no challenged the period of disqualification but he submits that that in itself is a serious punishment and he contends that the period of the term of imprisonment suggested that the learned magistrate paid undue attention to the consequences of the appellant's carelessness. Counsel for the Crown does not see fit to support the sentence of imprisonment and with respect to the learned magistrate I find myself compelled also to the view that this sentence is wrong in principle. 3. I do so bearing in mind the fact (and I believe it to be a fact) that in many cases sentences are inadequate to deter people from doing what is liable to cause injury to the public but it is illogical to pay undue attention to the consequences of careless driving. As has been suggested to me, if this accident had happened a moment or two later there might very well have been no injury. It is possible to say that that would have been the good fortune of the appellant, and that of course is true, but the sentence of imprisonment is unlikely to have any greater effect upon his future conduct or indeed that of other members of the public than a lesser sentence. That being so I do not think it is right that a sentence of imprisonment should be imposed. 4. I do observe that Parliament in England has seen git to make it an offence for the drivers of public service vehicles to smoke at all while driving and in Hong Kong the Legislature has made it an offence for a taxi-driver to smoke while driving but they have not thought it appropriate to make a similar rule for the drivers of private motor-cars. That may be regrettable, but I must have regard to the law as it is. There was no reason in law why the appellant should not be smoking. His sole fault was, in law, in failing to stop when he dropped his cigarette rather than fumble for it and take his eyes off the road. 5. In all the circumstances I think the appeal must be allowed. The sentence of imprisonment must be qua ...(illegible) hed and there will be substituted therefor a fine of $3 ...(illegible) 0. 22nd October, 1969. |