FU MUI-NGOK v. THE QUEEN

CACC001014/1978

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT	Criminal Appeal
	1978 No.1014

 

BETWEEN:
	FU Mui-ngok	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 19th December, 1978.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to driving a private car for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward contrary to Regulations 29(2) and 44 of the Road Traffic (Registration and Licensing of Vehicles) Regulations, and driving without third party insurance contrary to section 4(1) of the Motor Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance. On the first charge, he was sentenced to a fine of $400 and disqualified from having or obtaining a driving licence for a private car for six months. On the second charge, he was fined $1,500 and disqualified from having or obtaining a licence to drive any type of motor vehicle for two years.

2. It would, at first sight, seem to be unnecessary for the magistrate to impose two separate periods of disqualification which overlap. Of course, for the second charge, the magistrate has a duty to impose a period of disqualification unless there was a special reason for not doing so. This is not the first time that this appellant has come before the courts for driving a motor vehicle without a third party insurance. But the last time in which he did so was nearly three years' ago.

3. The appellant is a poor man and made his living out of the running of a 'pak pai'. He is married with children. In imposing the fines, the magistrate seems to have taken into consideration that the appellant will be able to earn the equivalent of what he was earning before he was disqualified. There is no evidence that this is so. The appellant has been a driver for many years and has not been trained for any other work. He is, at the moment, unemployed. When imposing a fine on an accused person, it is necessary to be sure, as far as that is possible, that the person sentenced is able to pay the fine imposed. I do not think that that was clearly in the mind of the magistrate when he imposed what can only be described as a "very heavy fine".

4. As to the period of disqualification, I think that insufficient weight was given to the fact that the appellant has not offended against the Road Traffic Ordinance for approximately the last three years.

5. In the event, I think that justice would best be done if the sentence on the first charge is reduced to a fine of $200 and the order for disqualification on that charge is quashed, and that the sentence on the second charge is reduced to a fine of $300. The period of disqualification to be twelve months in substitution for the two year period passed. The disqualification to apply to vehicles of all classes.

 

 

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Miss M. Moosdeen (D.L.A.) for appellant

Sinclair for crown