HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1976

CHAN YUE-CHOR 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
5100-EN-1976-05-31

CHAN YUE-CHOR v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000517/1976

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT 
  
 Criminal Appeal
 1976 No. 517.

  

BETWEEN  
 CHAN YUE-CHORAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Trainor, J.

Date of Judgment: 31st May, 1976.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was convicted in a magistrates court on his plea of guilty of driving a vehicle, a public light bus, without a valid licence, driving a motor vehicle without Third Party insurance and picking up passengers in a prohibited area. He was fined $10 on the first count, $20 on the second count, $30 on the third count and was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence to drive a public light bus for a period of 12 months. Against those penalties he now appeals.

2. Nothing whatever was advanced by the appellant that would in any way warrant a reduction of the penalties, and as to the disqualification, he advanced nothing to suggest circumstances special to the case that would warrant its removal. Indeed, having heard the appellant, I am satisfied that in the circumstances of this case he got off extremely lightly. In my opinion, driving a motor vehicle without Third Party insurance is one of the most serious offences that a motorist can commit. An act of negligence on his part may result in an unfortunate citizen being left a cripple for life or may leave a family without a bread winner. The chances of injured parties recovering appropriate damages from a driver such as the appellant would be, I should think, very remote indeed.

3. In my opinion the offence of driving a vehicle without Third Party insurance is one that demands a severe penalty. Indeed, I think imprisonment might well be considered the appropriate penalty for such an offence. I do not propose to impose a term of imprisonment in this case but I do think that the fine of $20 for such an offence is completely out of proportion to the offence committed and I allow the appeal against the penalty to the extent that I substitute a fine of $200 for that of $20 imposed.

  

  

 ( J.P. Trainor )

  

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Hindle, c.c. for Respondent.