TAM SHINE-KAI v. THE QUEEN

__________

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Sir Alan Huggins:

1. I am always reluctant to interfere with a magistrate's discretion in the matter of sentence. In the present case the learned magistrate thought that this was a bad case of careless driving, and so it was. The Appellant knocked down an elderly man on a pedestrian crossing. He obviously did not have proper control of his vehicle, for he had produced brake marks of about 80 ft. in length and ended up with his vehicle facing almost in the opposite direction. The road was straight and there was no reason why the Appellant should not have had a clear view. The Appellant did, however, have a clear record, he having been driving since 1953, and that is a matter to which I think the learned Magistrate may not have given sufficient weight.

2. From the papers the Appellant appears to have been driving what I can only describe as “shocking" working hours - from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. to midnight, and then from 4 a.m. until 7 a.m. That appears to me to be a matter which requires investigation. On the assumption that this is correct I think that the Appellant could fairly say that he was subject to the pressure of weariness''. The learned magistrate did reduce the period of disqualification from six months to four months on the ground that the disqualification had produced hardship and he had been sacked from his employment with the Government, but he does not mention even then these very long working hours.

3. It can be said that a person who is working very long hours has to drive even more carefully, but this Appellant's record does suggest that he is not a bad driver and in all the circumstances I am disposed to allow this appeal to the extent that the period of disqualification is reduced further to two months, and therefore his licence will be restored to him forthwith.

19th July 1982.