HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1979

LEUNG KWAN-TUN 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
3469-EN-1979-02-10

LEUNG KWAN-TUN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000036/1979

IN THE SUPREME COURTCriminal Appeal
1979 No. 36

BETWEEN:
LEUNG KWAN-TUNAppellant

AND

THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 10 February 1979

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. On 19th December, 1978 the appellant pleaded guilty to careless driving and was fined $500 and disqualified from holding a driving licence for three months. The disqualification was limited to taxis. The appellant appeals against his sentence. As a professional driver, he is particularly interested in the period of disqualification. He is not a taxi owner, he is employed.

2. The appellant ran into a pedestrian when the latter was crossing Argyle Street in Kowloon. It was very early in the morning and that portion of Argyle Street is straight with good visibility. Fortunately, the pedestrian was only slightly injured.

3. The appellant was undoubtedly guilty of careless driving although this is not a very serious case. The appellant is hard-pressed by financial difficulties and that fact was not brought to the attention of the court below. Also, that court was not informed of other matters of mitigation. It is only in a serious case of careless driving that a period of disqualification is imposed.

4. In this case the appellant did not apply to the court below to have the order of disqualification suspended until the hearing of this appeal. In the event, I think this is a case where the appeal should be allowed to the extent that the order of disqualification is set aside as from to-day's date.

 

 

(Geoffrey Briggs)
Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Ingham for the Crown/Respondent.