HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1978

CHIU KWOK-FAI 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
3444-EN-1978-05-13

CHIU KWOK-FAI v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000357/1978

 

IN THE SUPREME COURTCriminal Appeal
 1978 No.357

 

BETWEEN:  
 CHIU Kwok-faiAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 13th May, 1978.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was found guilty of careless driving and fined $500 and disqualified from driving goods vehicles for eighteen months. He appealed against conviction and sentence.

2. He was represented by Mr. R. Tang who urged that the conviction was against the weight of evidence. Everything that could be said in favour of the appellant was eloquently stated but I was not convinced that the magistrate had taken a wrong view of the evidence. In consequence I dismissed the appeal against conviction.

3. The appellant is a professional driver and at the time of the accident was driving a very heavy goods vehicle which was loaded. He has been employed in such work for the past five years. He has only two previous convictions for minor offences. The accident, the subject matter of this case, involved two young children who were badly injured. But the evidence shows that they were at least partly to blame for what occurred.

4. This offence does not attract a mandatory sentence of disqualification. In my view, the eighteen months passed is excessive. Taking everything into consideration I will allow the appeal against sentence to the extent that the period of disqualification is to be reduced to six months. The period to date from the date of the magistrate's sentence.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

R. Tang (Gallant Y.T. Ho & Co.) for Appellant

Kitchell for the Crown/Respondent