Yu Po-shing v. The Queen
|
CACC000076/1970 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 76 OF 1970 -----------------
Coram: Rigby, C.J. in Court. Date of Judgment: 26 February 1970 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant, a young man aged 25, came before the learned magistrate on twenty-nine different summons in relation to traffic offences. Twelve of those summons charged him with driving at different times and places whilst disqualified; a further twelve charged him with driving without the necessary third party policy of insurance in force; and the remaining five charges were in respect of relatively minor traffic offences. The learned magistrate sentenced him to one month's imprisonment on each of these charges of driving whilst disqualified, such sentences to run consecutively; one month's imprisonment on each of the charges of driving without a third party policy of insurance in force, to run concurrently with the other sentences; and fined him in respect of the remaining five relatively minor traffic contraventions, such fines ranging from $75 to $200 or imprisonment in default of payment. 2. The appellant is apparently, and was at all material times, the driver of a nine-seater van. The facts of this case have been considerably complicated by the fact that there was no statement made by the police prosecution officer to the magistrate when the case came before the magistrate for hearing. I am told that the reason for that is that in traffic cases and hawker cases no statements of facts are put before the magistrate because these cases are dealt with so rapidly and quickly at the time. For myself, I am quite unable to regard serious traffic charges of this nature of driving whilst disqualified and driving without having a third party policy of insurance in force, as minor charges. It seems to me that it was essential that a statement of the facts should have been before the magistrate before he imposed these relatively substantial punishments amounting to twelve months' imprisonment and a period of disqualification amounting to five years. I adjourned the case in order that the matter should come before me so that I might be further acquainted with the facts. 3. Mr. Fok, who has really urged all that could be said on behalf of the appellant, whilst admitting that the appellant committed these offences whilst he was under disqualification in respect of an earlier traffic offence, said that the appellant had paid $500 to a fellow van driver who had procured for him a clean licence and that he was under the impression, therefore, that he was driving under a valid licence at the time of these offences were committed. I find it impossible to accept that explanation; indeed, it seems to me that the fact that he was prepared to, and did, as I am informed, pay $500 to a fellow driver to secure for him, as it is alleged, a clean driving licence, so far from being a mitigation of the offence, only aggravates it. 4. It appears that these separate informations in respect of these charges were all dealt with by the magistrate at one time because the police had in fact been looking for the appellant over a period of time, and it was only when they were able to find him that the charges were able to be heard against him. 5. The appellant appeals against what, in effect, is the total sentence of twelve months' imprisonment, plus the various fines or imprisonments in default of payment of those fines, and the period of five years disqualification. 6. Mr. Fok has drawn my attention to a number of cases, and I refer only to the case of The Queen v. Bond(1) in which the court there said:-
Mr. Fok points out that although the offender, the appellant, had been convicted of a number of traffic offences, none of those convictions are in regard to careless or dangerous driving, but are all convictions for more minor offences committed by the appellant whilst he was engaged in driving a public vehicle, such offences as stopping at a bus stop, failing to stop at a red light and so forth. 7. Whilst it is perfectly true that it would appear that the appellant has no previous convictions for actual dangerous driving, it is abundantly clear from the convictions recorded against him that he appears to have a total disregard for the ordinary traffic laws of the Colony. In the circumstances of this case, I find it quite impossible to say that the aggregate sentence of twelve months' imprisonment imposed upon him, together with the various fines, or imprisonment in default of payment for those fines, are in any way too severe; nor, in my view, having regard to his complete disregard for the traffic laws of the Colony, can it be said that a period of five years disqualification was unreasonable. 8. The appeal is dismissed. Representation: Paul Fok (Samuel Soo & Co.) for Appellant. Lucas, S.C.C. for Crown/Respondent. (1) (1968) 1 W.L.R. p.1185 @ 1186. |