LUK CHOR SANG v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.730 OF 1972
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| LUK CHOR SANG | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Pickering, J.
Date: 7th February, 1973
-----------------------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------------------
1. The appellant was convicted of driving a private motor vehicle for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward and of driving that vehicle without third party insurance. On the first charge he was fined $150 and on the second $200, it being also ordered in connection with the second charge that he be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle for fifteen months. He appeals against both conviction and sentence.
2. I will say no more about the grounds of appeal against conviction than that they did not commend themselves to me and I dismissed the appeal against conviction. I think it appropriate, however, to say a few words about sentence.
3. The sentence were imposed before the decision of the Full Court in LEUNG Tak-kuen v. Reg[1]. and before that of my brother Huggins in CHAN Kam-chung v. Reg[2]. In the first of these cases it was held that there is power under the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance to limit disqualification from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle to a particular class of vehicles; in the latter case it was held that under s.4(2)(A) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, there is no power to disqualify for any period longer than twelve months. In the present case the learned magistrate referred to the conflicting decisions which obtained in relation to the discretion or otherwise to limit disqualification to a particular class of vehicles and, in imposing the disqualification, he followed the terminology of the Ordinance which resulted in no limitation of the disqualification. At the time the learned magistrate wrote his Statement of Findings, he was entirely right in saying that there were conflicting decisions upon this subject. The matter has, however, been resolved by the Full Court case of LEUNG Tak-kuen v. Reg1. and it remains for me to consider whether or not I should interfere with the disqualification by confining it to private motor-cars. In the case of HON Sik-kay v. Reg[3]. I said that limitation might well be appropriate in the type of case in which an insurance policy, valid except as to hire or reward, was in fact in existence in respect of the vehicle and where the person charged was a professional driver capable of continuing to earn a legitimate living in that capacity if the disqualification were to be limited. In the present case there was in existence a policy of insurance, valid except as to hire or reward, and the appellant is a taxi driver. At the time of his offence he was enjoying, if not a bus-man’s holiday, a taxi-man’s holiday by driving a pak pai on his day off. It seems to me desirable in the interests of the appellant and of the community that his appeal against sentence should be allowed to the extent that his disqualification will be limited to private cars and it follows from the case of CHAN Kam-chung v. Reg2. that the period of disqualification must be reduced to twelve months.
Winter of Gordon Hampton & Winter for Appellant
Corrigan, S.C.C. for Respondent.
[1] Cr. App. 630 of 1972
[2] Cr. App. 676 of 1972
[3] Cr. App. 808 of 1972