KOWLOON MOTOR BUS CO. (1933) LTD. v. THE QUEEN

CACC000616/1981

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT	Criminal Appeal
	1981, No. 616

 

BETWEEN
	KOWLOON MOTOR BUS CO. (1933) LTD.	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Barker, J.

Date of Judgment: 16th September 1981

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. An appeal by the Kowloon Motor Bus Co. against sentences passed by Mr. Crawshaw in respect of 29 summonses which were laid against the Kowloon Motor Bus Co. in respect of alleged breaches of Regulation 173 (3) of the Road Traffic (Construction and Use) Regulations, namely that on the relevant dates, a bus of the Kowloon Motor Bus Co. was overloaded. In respect of each of those offences, the Kowloon Motor Bus Co. Ltd. pleaded guilty and the learned Magistrate imposed a fine of $2,000.00 on each summons, that being the maximum prescribed by law. The Motor Bus Co. have admittedly a large number of previous similar convictions. Mr. Litton told me that in fact they amounted to 1,014 over the years and as he put it quitely bluntly that was a quite fortuitous number, it really depended upon the number of times that the police stopped the vehicles and as he said in fact the company had probably offended against this particular provision on many more occasions. As Mr. Marshall who appeared for the Crown rightly submitted and as indeed Mr. Litton who appeared for the company accepted, the object of this particular provision is the safety of the passengers, and that is a matter which the Court must always have in the forefront of its mind when imposing penalties. But the Court must, in my judgment, take into consideration all the circumstances of the case. It is an unfortunate fact of life in Hong Kong that there is overcrowding. There are frequently more people wishing to travel than there are buses to accommodate them. In those circumstances it is in my judgment inevitable, unless the Bus Co. were to have a regulator at every bus stop or a conductor on every bus, that from time to time overloading would occur, and I am satisfied that from all the circumstances of the case it is not the policy of the Kowloon Motor Bus Co. to allow overloading so that it can obtain more revenue. On the contrary, I am satisfied that it is the policy of that company to prevent overloading if it can. It was suggested that one of the ways it could do this apart from providing a conductor would be to install some kind of buzzer or audible warning system which would go off the moment overloading occurred. Speaking from my own personal experience, I know of no bus company which has installed such equipment. I also consider, having regard to the evidence placed before me that if the Kowloon Motor Bus Co. were to re-introduce the system of having conductors, inevitably fares would have to increase still further. In all the circumstances of the case and bearing in mind as I do the sentences which have been imposed both before and after the hearing of the summonses by other Magistrates, I am of the view that these sentences were excessive, and I am further of the view that it would not be right to impose exactly the same penalty in respect of each of these summonses. So far as summons No. 6484 is concerned, I shall vary the sentence on that by imposing a fine of $500.00. So far as 6485 and 6486 are concerned, I shall vary the penalty by imposing a fine of $750.00; and so far as summons No. 7151 is concerned, I shall impose a penalty of $1,000.00. So far as all the rest of the summonses concerned, I impose a fine of $250.00 on each summons. To that extent therefore these appeals are allowed.

 

 

	D.A. Barker
	Judge of the High Court

 

Representation:

Henry Litton, Q.C. & Robert Tang (P.C. Woo & Co.) for Appellant

Marshall for Crown/Respondent