Singh Amarjit v. HKSAR

HCMA 394/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 394 OF 2011

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 1865/2011)

____________

BETWEEN

____________

Before: Hon. Wright J

Date of Hearing and Judgment : 19 July 2011

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

1.The appellant pleaded guilty to a single charge of careless driving and a single charge of failing to provide a specimen of breath. The charges arose from a very minor incident. The appellant was a driver employed by a hotel to provide valet parking services. In the course of moving a motor vehicle it was necessary for him to reverse it. Whilst doing so he failed to observe a pedestrian with whose right leg the vehicle came into contact. The pedestrian was entirely uninjured. When the police attended the scene the appellant essayed 12 unsuccessful attempts to register his breath in the device used to conduct a screening breath test.

2.The magistrate adopted an entirely appropriate approach to this matter. He recognised that the conduct which gave rise to the charge of careless driving was not serious. He imposed a fine of $750 which was well within the capacity of the appellant to pay. He, correctly in my view, regarded the second offence as being the more serious circumstances. He imposed a fine of $3000 which, in the ordinary course, may well be regarded as light for an offence of this nature but in the unusual circumstances was finely judged by the magistrate. He recognised that absent any special reason he was obliged to impose a mandatory order of disqualification from driving all classes of motor vehicles for a period of two years as well as the attendance by the appellant at a driving improvement course. He gave careful consideration as to whether special reasons existed and correctly concluded that they did not.

3.The appellant appeals the sentence, but, particularly, the disqualification order. He has apparently previously been injured and driving is the only occupation which he is able to pursue. He is consequently now unemployed. I understand why he feels that the punishment might be disproportionate to his conduct but the magistrate was entirely correct in his decisions.

4.The appeal is dismissed.

Ms Eva Chan, Public Prosecutor, Department of Justice, for the Respondent.

Appellant in person.