CACC000743/1972
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 743 OF 1972
-----------------
| BETWEEN | | |
| CHENG LAP KAY | Appellant |
| and | |
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Huggins, J.
Date of Judgment: 30th November, 1972.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. The Appellant appeals against convictions and sentences on charges of driving a private car for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and of driving without third party insurance.
2. The Appellant conceded that he was driving a private motor-car and he produced no policy of insurance, although he tells me that he has one. Evidence was given by two police officers to the effect that the Appellant stopped his motor-car and asked if they wanted a vehicle. They said "Yes" and both boarded the vehicle. The Appellant asked their destination and, when they told him, he drove off. When they reached the destination he asked them for $3. This was handed to him and accepted. Thereupon he was arrested. The Appellant denied most of this. He said he was stopped by someone he knew to be a police officer, who said he had urgent business at the Police Station, and that he volunteered a lift without making any charge, but that in return for this favour the police forced $3 upon him and then arrested him.
3. There was ample evidence upon which to convict the Appellant if that evidence was believed. It was believed and I see no reason to believe that the learned magistrate came to a wrong conclusion. The learned magistrate imposed fines of $50 and $100 and disqualification for a period of twelve months. The Appellant was formerly licensed, so he says, to drive one other class of vehicle besides private motor-cars. There is an appeal at present before the Full Court to decide whether or not the disqualification under s.4(1) of the Motor Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance can be limited to the class of vehicle which is concerned in the offence.
4. The Appellant says that he did have a policy of insurance. I shall therefore adjourn the appeal as to sentence to a day to be notified on the one point whether the disqualification ought to be restricted. Save to that extent the appeals against convictions and sentences are dismissed. At the adjourned hearing the Appellant must produce his policy of insurance and I must emphasise that what he must produce is the policy which he says was in force at the date of the offence, 14th August, 1972.
30th November, 1972.
Representation: