Li Chi Wai v. The Queen
|
CACC000870/1980
Dangerous Driving - disqualification - professional driver.
----------------- Coram: O'Connor, J. in Court Date of Judgment: 21st November 1980 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving. He has abandoned his appeal against conviction but proceeded with that against an order of disqualification from driving for a period of 18 months. It was a bad case of dangerous driving though, fortunately, there was no accident. It did not arise from inadvertence or error of judgment, but deliberate taking of a risk. It is submitted on his behalf that as he is a professional driver the disqualification ought to be limited to motorcycles as he was driving one at the time of the incident. It is further submitted that the period of disqualification is too long. I was referred to R. v. Cheung Chi Shing (1964) H.K.L.R. 1 wherein it was said that disqualification is primarily for the protection of the public, but also operates as a very severe penalty, especially in the case of a professional driver. There can be no doubt about that. 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. It would be rare for the danger to the public from such persons, to be in any way dependent upon the type of vehicle they were driving, and therefore it would not appear sensible to limit the disqualification to a particular class of vehicle. 2. The appellant has a previous conviction in 1979 for careless driving. On that occasion there was an order of disqualification for a period of one month. The learned magistrate in the present case considered a disqualification of 18 months was called for, but I consider that a period of 12 months would be sufficient deterrent.
Representation: Cheng Huan instructed by Messrs Robin J. Oliver for the appellant Miss M. A. Crabtree, Crown Counsel, for the Crown/prosecution |