The Queen v. Ho Yiu-kwong

CACC000838/1983

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 1983

___________

Between

Coram: Hon. Penlington, J. in Court

Date: 22nd July, 1983

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. This is an appeal against sentence, and in particular a period of disqualification of 6 months. It followed an incident in Lantau when the appellant had a dispute with another driver, or rather with that driver's passenger, and then over a period of some time deliberately drove in front of him so as to cause him as much inconvenience as possible. This included going very slowly and preventing the other driver overtaking and finally pulling his car across the road forcing the other driver to brake violently to avoid a collision.

2. I was referred to some previous authorities on the question of disqualification of professional drivers. The first of Cheung Chi-shing 1964 H.K.L.R.1 and another one in Wong Shing-kee C.A. 1079/1978. Considering sentence in each case must be considered on its own facts and it is not often that one can obtain the great deal of guidance from previous decisions. However, the reasons set out in another case, not cited, regarding this question of professional drivers in my view helpful. That was in Li Chi-wai 1981 H.K.L.R.29, where Mr. Justice O'Connor said, at page 30:

"The loss of employment or income will in itself have a deterrent effect. The effect of disqualification on the particular individual is a matter to be borne in mind, however it will not usually weigh very heavily where the individual has demonstrated that he is a danger to other persons using the road. Dangerous professional drivers are a greater public menace than non professionals, because they are likely to be driving on the roads for longer periods, and thereby have more occasions upon which they are likely to put the public at risk. Persons whose employment involves regular driving, but who drive in a manner which puts the public at risk, are not entitled to preferential treatment which would give them opportunities to endanger the public, though to the extent that deprivation of employment or earnings is likely to have a deterrent effect the period of disqualification may be shortened. "

I entirely agrees.

3. In Wong Shing-kee a minibus driver was annoyed by being stopped by two women constables and drove his vehicle on, causing them to have to jump aside to avoid injury. Briggs C. J. said that a period of disqualification of six months was too long as he was a professional driver. With the greatest respect I do not agree. I think in cases where any person deliberately puts members of public at risk, and I am satisfied that the appellant did so in this case, a period of disqualification for six months is perfectly proper. This was a deliberate act, or a serious deliberate acts, and the appellant must have realized that he was placing people at risk. He lost his temper and that is not something which should happen specially with a person who considers himself to be a professional driver. If a professional driver deliberately puts himself in period of losing his licence by taking risks I do not see he can thereafter complain if that is in fact what happens.

4. I think the period of disqualification of 6 months was perfectly proper and the appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

B.M. Ryan S.C.C. for Crown.

K.M. Chong instructed by P.T. Yeung & Co. for the Appellant.