HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1978

CHUNG MAN-KIN 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
7530-EN-1978-11-11

CHUNG MAN-KIN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000937/1978

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT1978 No. 937
 (Criminal)

 

BETWEEN:  
 CHUNG MAN-KINAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 11th November, 1978.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was found guilty of dangerous driving causing death. He was sentenced to three months' imprisonment and disqualified from holding a licence for one year. He appeals against his sentence.

2. The appellant is aged 26 and is a motor salesman. As a result of this case he has been dismissed from his job but has secured employment elsewhere and in another capacity. The accident occurred in Causeway Road. The appellant drove his car through a red light and knocked down and killed an elderly woman.

3. Mr. Cheng Huan, who appeared for the appellant, drew the Court's attention to a long list of similar cases, which has been of considerable assistance to this court. This court has said before that it is only in cases of gross negligence or deliberate dangerous driving than an immediate custodial sentence should be imposed. Having perused this list and the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that this is a case of momentary negligence and that it was not proved that the appellant was racing or was guilty of similar conduct. The evidence was that he was going "very fast" but no one gave any evidence as to what his actual speed was.

4. In the event, I think that justice would best be done if the appeal against sentence is allowed to the extent that a fine of $1,000 be substituted for the sentence of imprisonment. The period of disqualification is to remain and there will be seven days in which to pay the fine, or three month's imprisonment in default.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Cheng Huan (Poon & Sum) for appellant

Gurney for crown