Case Document

100%

CACC000866/1973

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 866 OF 1973

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

BETWEEN
	LEE HING CHEONG	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 14th December 1973.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an appeal against conviction and sentence on charges first of driving a private car to carry passengers for hire or reward and second of driving without third party risk insurance.

2. There was here a straight issue of fact. The police gave evidence that the Appellant drove a car near the Cathay Hotel and pulled up in front of a police officer. It was said that the Appellant asked if the officer wanted a car, was told that he wanted to go to North Point Ferry Pier and that he then invited the officer to enter. When they got to North Point the Appellant is alleged to have said that he was going to charge $3. The officer gave him a $5 bank note, which had been marked, and received $2 coins in exchange. Thereupon the Appellant was arrested.

3. The marked note was produced in court but the Appellant complains that the two coins were not produced. His defence was that he was engaged in taking three passengers to the Cathay Hotel and that when he dropped his passengers a stranger came up to him and asked for a lift. He denied that there was ever any question of an exchange of money. The Appellant never sought to show that he would be covered by insurance if the allegations of the prosecution were correct.

4. The learned magistrate has given full reasons why he preferred the evidence for the prosecution and for being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the police officer's evidence was true. In this court the Appellant has merely repeated the story which he told in the lower court. It is impossible for me to say that the learned magistrate came to a wrong conclusion.

5. The appeal against sentence is directed mainly against the disqualification for twelve months but there was also a fine of $150 for the insurance offence and a fine of $50 for the carrying of passengers. I cannot say that those fines are unreasonable, and the learned magistrate, as he rightly said, was compelled to impose disqualification for twelve months. I have a letter from the Appellant's employer, as did the learned magistrate, but even accepting the letter at its face value there is nothing in it which would entitle me to interfere with the order for disqualification.

6. This appeal must be dismissed.

14th December 1973.

Representation:

Related Cases

Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first