Fu Chun-kuen v. The Queen

CACC000083/1976

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83 OF 1976

-----------------

-----------------

Coram: Pickering, J.

Date of Judgment: 13th February, 1976.

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The appellant taxi driver was convicted upon a charge of careless driving, fined $300, ordered to pay compensation of $300 to a man whom he injured and disqualified from driving a taxi for three years. Initially he appealed against both conviction and sentence but upon the hearing of the appeal his solicitor, Mr. Howell, abandoned the appeal against conviction.

2. The facts were that in a one way street where the traffic was light the appellant reversed his taxi against the flow of traffic apparently in order to change lanes. There was some suggestion before me that the purpose of reversing was to reach a man whom he knocked down in the process since the driver considered that man to be a likely fare. This appears to me to be an improbable motive in as much as the man whom he knocked down was carrying two buckets of water at the time -an improbable cargo to take aboard a taxi. The buckets of water were sent flying and the carrier was knocked to the ground sustaining injuries not of a serious nature; his claim to have "broken my bones" was not borne out by the medical evidence. The appellant alighted from his cab, pushed the injured man on to the pavement and drove away but was intercepted by a patrol car. On these facts he was rightly convicted of careless driving.

3. Disqualification from holding a licence is always a severe penalty for a professional driver; this disqualification for three years is very severe and, it was suggested to me, out of line with the penalties normally imposed for such an offence; this suggestion was conceded by counsel for the Crown who went so far as to describe the disqualification as manifestly excessive having regard to the fact that disqualification for twelve months is typical, even upon conviction for dangerous driving.

4. The appellant has a previous conviction for speeding in 1969 and one for careless driving in 1972. For a professional driver who spends his working hours upon the road this is by no means a bad record. His behaviour after the accident was of course reprehensible but he is not being punished for that nor is there any indication that the learned magistrate took such behaviour into account in imposing sentence.

5. In all the circumstances the appeal against sentence will be allowed to the extent that the disqualification from holding a licence to drive a taxi for a period of three years be set aside and substituted by a similar disqualification for a period of twelve months.

Representation:

Howell of Gunston & Chow for appellant.

Marash, C.C., for respondent.