KAI KE YAN v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000761/1974
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 761 OF 1974
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| KAI KE YAN | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Pickering, J.
Date of Judgment: 14th October, 1974.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. Although I welcome, indeed have sought, the opportunity of dealing with another appeal against sentence upon a charge of careless driving, I propose to say no more about the present appeal than that it was without merit and that I dismissed it.
2. The case affords me the opportunity, however, of adverting to Criminal Appeal No. 498 of 1973. In that case counsel for the Crown intervened on behalf of the appellant by assuring me that endorsement of a driving licence, upon a first offence of careless driving, was unusual. Neither counsel drew to my attention s.14(3) of the Road Traffic Ordinance which, no doubt, I should have had in mind, and I accepted Crown counsel's assurance.
3. The subsection, which I am sure is well-known to every magistrate, reads as follows:
"A court or magistrate before whom a person is convicted of an offence under this section, unless for any special reason it thinks fit to order otherwise, shall order particulars of the conviction to be endorsed on any driving licence held or obtained by such person".
4. In Criminal Appeal No. 498 of 1973, no more harm was done than that an appellant who did not merit it, had the order for endorsement of his licence set aside. I understand, however, from that admirable magisterial publication "Obiter Dicta", that that case has, upon at least one occasion, been cited for the proposition that it is unusual to endorse the licence of a person with a clear record who is convicted, for the first time, of careless driving. It is since reading of this fact that I have sought the opportunity of dealing with a similar case in order to make it clear that in the earlier case my acceptance of Crown counsel's assurance was per incuriam and that the case should not be regarded as authority for the proposition that it is unusual to endorse the licence of a person with a clear record who is convicted, for the first time, of careless driving.
Representation:
Appellant in person.
J.W. Dick, C.C., for respondent.