HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1971

WUN YIN FUN v. THE QUEEN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN

Files (2)

4061-EN-1971-08-13

WUN YIN FUN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000414/1971

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 414 OF 1971

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

BETWEEN
WUN YIN FUNAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Pickering, J.

Date of Judgment: 13th August, 1971.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was convicted of careless driving and fined $100 as well as being disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a taxi for a period of one month. The disqualification was suspended pending the outcome of this appeal.

2. As in Criminal Appeal 403 of 1971, an appeal from the same learned magistrate, this was not a really bad case of careless driving and the magistrate himself was of the view that the pedestrian complainant, who was knocked down, was guilty of contributory negligence.

3. In the case of Reg. v. CHEUNG Chi-shing(1), my learned brother, Blair-Kerr said:

"          Disqualification is primarily for the protection of the public, but it also operates as a very severe penalty, especially in the case of a professional driver."

4. I agree and I do not consider that the facts of this case merited "a very severe penalty" in the case of this professional driver. Although the appeal against conviction fails, that against sentence succeeds to the extent that the order of disqualification is set aside.

 

Representation:

Burnett (Gunston & Chow) for the Appellant.

Crown Counsel for the Respondent.

 

 

(1) 1964 H.K.L.R. p.1. @ p.5.

4060-EN-1971-08-13

WUN YIN FUN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000414A/1971

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 414 OF 1971

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

BETWEEN
WUN YIN FUNAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Pickering, J.

Date of Judgment: 13th August, 1971.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was convicted of careless driving and fined $100 as well as being disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a taxi for a period of one month. The disqualification was suspended pending the outcome of this appeal.

2. As in Criminal Appeal 403 of 1971, an appeal from the same learned magistrate, this was not a really bad case of careless driving and the magistrate himself was of the view that the pedestrian complainant, who was knocked down, was guilty of contributory negligence.

3. In the case of Reg. v. CHEUNG Chi-shing(1), my learned brother, Blair-Kerr said:

"          Disqualification is primarily for the protection of the public, but it also operates as a very severe penalty, especially in the case of a professional driver."

4. I agree and I do not consider that the facts of this case merited "a very severe penalty" in the case of this professional driver. Although the appeal against conviction fails, that against sentence succeeds to the extent that the fine of $100 and order of disqualification are set aside and a fine of $400 substituted.

 

Representation:

Burnett (Gunston & Chow) for the Appellant.

Crown Counsel for the Respondent.

 

 

(1) 1964 H.K.L.R. p.1 at p.5.