HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1980

YUNG HON-MING 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
7444-EN-1980-11-21

YUNG HON-MING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000905/1980

IN THE SUPREME COURT
Criminal Appeal
1980 No.905

BETWEEN
YUNG Hon-mingAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Roberts, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 21st November, 1980.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was disqualified from driving for 18 months after his conviction for various driving offences in January 1980.

2. In September, about half way through the period of suspension, he was twice stopped and charged with speeding. During the preparation of these cases it emerged that he was driving whilst disqualified.

3. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment concurrent on each of two charges of driving whilst disqualified under section 25 of the Road Traffic Ordinance.

4. I agree with the magistrate that these are serious offences and that they warrant, in this instance, an immediate sentence of imprisonment. The only question which remains is whether the maximum penalty provided by law is appropriate.

5. The appellant has a clear record, apart from his driving. He is a menace on the road, and is better off it, for his own sake and for the protection of others.

6. But he is a man with a stable family life, who has worked at the same job for four years and earned a substantial salary. Through his counsel, he has expressed his deep regret at his stupidity.

7. I do not think that this is an example of the worst possible kind of conduct under section 25.

8. I therefore reduce the sentence of imprisonment on charges 1 and 3 from 6 months to 3 months. The other sentences will stand as will the order of disqualification for three years.

 

Representation:

Miss Mary Ho (Michael Jenkins & Au) for the appellant.

Cagney for Crown.