HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1979

LEE CHUNG-YIM 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
2723-EN-1979-04-17

LEE CHUNG-YIM v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000293/1979

IN THE SUPREME COURTCriminal Appeal
1979 No. 293

BETWEEN:
LEE Chung-YimAppellant

AND

THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 17 April 1979

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

The appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of careless driving and was sentenced to a fine of $1 and disqualified from driving all vehicles for three months. That was on the 23rd February, 1979. He appeals against the order for disqualification.

2. The appellant is a professional driver and has been so for fifteen years. He has three previous similar convictions, one in 1976 and two in 1977. On each occasion he was fined and it is obvious from the size of the fines that the cases were not very serious. That remark also applies to the present case.

3. What happened was that the appellant switched lanes causing another vehicle to brake. There was no collision, no property was damaged and nobody was injured. It would seem that the magistrate, in passing the sentence he did on the appellant, was influenced by the fact that the appellant, when he appeared before him, walked with the aid of a stick. The appellant suffers from rheumatism from time to time and I was told that when he so suffers he cannot drive.

4. In my view, the sentence of disqualification in this case is not justified. It was a trivial case and the appellant pleaded guilty and a fine would have been enough. In the event, therefore, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the order for disqualification is quashed.

 

 

(Geoffrey Briggs)
Chief Justice.