CHAU YU PING v. THE QUEEN

CACC000657/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.657 OF 1968

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

BETWEEN
	CHAU YU PING	Appellant
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 25 November 1968

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J:

1. The appellant was convicted of driving without third party insurance. He was sentenced to a fine of $300 and, as required by law, he was disqualified from holding a licence for 12 months. He has appealed against sentence.

2. Before me the appellant has contended that he was innocent and was wrongly convicted. As to that I cannot hear him. If he wishes to appeal against conviction and has good cause for not having appealed against conviction in due time he may make an application in writing under s.114A of the Magistrates Ordinance. I must assume that he was rightly convicted.

3. It was admitted that the appellant had in 1962 been previously convicted for an offence of this nature. Despite that the learned magistrate says it is quite possible, as urged by his counsel, that the appellant did not understand the details of his policy and that he was not aware that it did not cover the carriage of passengers for reward. For some reason the documents in this case are not in proper order: the record on appeal ought to include copies of all documentary exhibits. Not only do I not have the policy of insurance which the record shows was admitted in evidence or the certificate of insurance which the list of exhibits suggests was admitted in evidence, I have no copy of either document and it appears that the insurance certificate was returned to the solicitor for the appellant so that it is not available to this court. A certificate of insurance, which the appellant says is the relevant certificate, has been produced by him. It bears no identification by the magistrate's clerk but, assuming that this was the relevant document produced before the magistrate, it states in the clearest terms that the policy does not cover use for carriage of passengers for hire or reward. If, despite his previous conviction under this Ordinance, the appellant did not take the trouble to find out for what he was insured then the fault is entirely his. I see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the sentence which was passed by the learned magistrate.

 

25th November, 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Alexander for the Respondent