CHAN BIU v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000305/1970
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 305 OF 1970
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| CHAN Biu | Appellant | |
| AND | ||
| The Queen | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Mills-Owens J. in Court.
Date of Judgment: 13 July 1970
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. In this case the appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of careless driving of a motor-cycle and was fined $100, his licence being ordered to be endorsed. He appeals against sentence, to the extent of asking that the order for endorsement be set aside. The circumstances of the case were that at about 1 p.m. in a busy street, queen's Road East, outside the Wanchai Post Office, he was following a motor car which stopped at traffic lights; the appellant was unable to pull up and ran into the rear of the motor car. There was only slight damage to both vehicles; the appellant sustained a nose injury but was not hospitalised. There was no weather factor contributing to the incident. Before the learned magistrate the appellant said his foot slipped on the brake; before me on the appeal he said his impetus was too great for him to stop before hitting the car. The only question is whether there is any 'special reason' why endorsement should not be ordered. The appellant was inexperienced, having held a licence for but a short time, but, as the learned magistrate pointed out, referring to McCrone v. Riding (1938) 1 All E.R. 157, that was no special reason.
2. In Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1970 (concerning the vilidity of Reg. 41B of the Road Traffic (Taxis, Public Omnibuses, Public Light Buses and Public Cars) Regulations) the Full Court had occasion to consider whether the slightness of the degree of careless driving could amount in law to a special reason for not ordering the impounding of a vehicle; the Solicitor-General conceded this was so and the Full Court so held. But the fact that careless driving leads to but minor consequences, whilst relevant to the amount of the fine to be imposed, does not, in my view, necessarily mean that the degree of carelessness must be treated as so slight as to give rise to a special reason for not ordering endorsement. The appellant was, clearly, not exercising proper control over his vehicle. Each case must, of course, be decided on its own facts. Here I see no reason to differ from the magistrate and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
| (Mills-Owens J.) |
13 JUL 1970
Representation:
Appellant in person.
Stratton (D.P.P.) for Respondent.
Oral judgment reduced into writing.