CHUNG KEI LUNG v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 81 OF 1973
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| CHUNG KEI LUNG | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Pickering, J.
-----------------------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------------------
1. This appellant pleaded guilty to careless driving contrary to s.14(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap.220. He was further charged with failing to display “L” plates and driving outside the permitted hours, contrary to regs. 10(4) and 24 of the Road Traffic (Driving Licences) Regulations Cap. 220. In what, in another branch of the law, would be termed a rolled-up plea, he pleaded guilty to this hydra-headed charge.
2. There is no merit in his appeal against the charge of careless driving which is dismissed, nor is there substance in his appeal against the fine of $200 imposed in respect of that offence.
3. The other Information against the appellant reads as follows:
“for that you on the 17th day of September 1972, at Prince Edward Road, outside No. 283 in this Colony, being the holder of a provisional licence No. DD2027 to drive a motor cycle did drive a motor cycle, registration mark AY 8872 on a road, otherwise than in accordance with the conditions under which the said provisional licence had been granted to you, in that when you drove such motor cycle on the occasion aforesaid – (1) you failed to display ‘L’ plates thereon contrary to condition 5 set out in the Second Schedule to the Road Traffic (Driving Licence) Regulations, and (2) you drove at a time, namely 14.05 hours, which was not within the times during which you were permitted to drive as specified in the said provisional licence, contrary to condition 8 set out in the Second Schedule to the Road Traffic (Driving Licence) Regulations. Contrary to Regulations 10(4) and 24 of the Road Traffic (Driving Licence) Regulations, Cap. 220.”
4. This Information is bad for duplicity as Mr. Duckett, for the Crown, very properly pointed out. The learned magistrate could not know whether the appellant was pleading guilty to failing to display “L” plates, to driving outside the permitted hours or to both of those offences. Accordingly, despite the fact that the appellant pleaded guilty to this charge, both the conviction thereon and the fine of $300 imposed in respect of it, are set aside and to that extent the appeal is allowed.
Appellant in person.
Duckett, S.C.C. for Respondent.