Chiu San-hung v. The Queen
|
CACC001275/1977
-----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J.A. Date of Judgment: 19th January 1978. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. This is an appeal against sentence. The Appellant was convicted of careless driving and of failing to stop after an accident. In respect of the first offence he was fined $250 and disqualified from driving for three months and in respect of the second offence he was fined $150 - and in respect of both fines he was allowed two weeks to pay with three weeks' imprisonment in default. Mr. Lee, on behalf of the Appellant, has conceded that the fines were appropriate but he urges me to say that the order of disqualification made the sentence heavier than the circumstances justify. Unfortunately, this being only an appeal against sentence, I do not have the full record of the evidence but I have been shown a copy of a plan which presumably was before the learned magistrate. This shows that the accident occurred at a place where manifestly danger must occur. The Clear Water Bay Road appears to be under reconstruction. Coming from the west there is a highway with three lanes of traffic in each direction. The two vehicles involved in the accident from which this case arises were both travelling in an easterly direction. A private car was in the inner lane and the Appellant's bus was in the middle lane. The road there is then blocked and all traffic has to turn left. The road into which they turn is apparently wide enough only for one lane of traffic. Clearly where three lanes of traffic have to converge into one lane at a right-angle a very difficult situation arises for all drivers concerned and it requires great restraint. What happened was that the private car was on the very corner turning left when the Appellant's bus caught the off-side rear mud-guard. The Appellant then unfortunately did not stop, although he must have been aware that an accident had occurred, and he drove on. 2. The learned magistrate was informed that the Appellant had previous convictions for careless driving in April and in July of 1977 and she also noted that the Appellant appeared to regard the offence somewhat lightly: he repeatedly described it as "a very minor accident". 3. This, in my view, was not in all the circumstances a very serious offence of careless driving, but it was careless driving and even if there had been no accident the Appellant was obviously crowding the vehicle on his left in a manner which showed a want of proper consideration. 4. Mr. Lee has drawn my attention to two cases. One was an English case which clearly establishes that the fact that a defendant is likely to lose his job as a result of an order of disqualification is a mitigating factor although it would not be a "special reason" where an order for disqualification was mandatory. he has also drawn my attention to a case tried by Blair-Kerr, J. where the facts were not very different from the present, in that it was a case of careless driving and the learned judge was driven to the conclusion that the offence was not a very serious one. With some hesitation the learned judge ordered that the disqualification order be quashed. I, too, with some hesitation have come to the conclusion that the order of disqualification was not really necessary in the circumstances of this case and that the order should be quashed. The appeal is allowed to that extent. 19th January 1978. Representation: |