HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1985

THE QUEEN v. LAW SIU-KEUNG

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
39764-EN-1985-10-08

THE QUEEN v. LAW SIU-KEUNG

HTML content

HCMA000835/1985

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

Magistracy Appeal

No. 835 of 1985

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

 

and

 

LAW SIU-KEUNG

 

Coram: Hon. Kempster, J.A. (sitting as an additional High Court Judge)

Date of Hearing: 8th October 1985

Date of Judgment: 8th October 1985

 

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

 

1. On 15th October 1984 LAM Siu-keung exceeded the speed limit quite substantially when driving a private car and, when he appeared before Mr. Dennis Woo at North Kowloon Magistrate's Court on 16th September of this year, pleaded guilty to so doing. The Magistrate observed his record and found that he had three previous convictions for speeding. It necessarily followed that a mandatory period of 12 months disqualification followed pursuant to section 41(2) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374 as, in turn pursuant to section 71, did a requirement that he should sit and pass a driving test before his licence was returned to him. The issue before this Court is whether or not Mr. Woo should have exercised the discretion vested in him under section 69(2)(b) to limit the mandatory disqualification to private cars only because I am told, and it is not disputed, that in each instance where the appellant had been found guilty of speeding he has been driving a private car. By contrast he has since 1981, from time to time, driven goods vehicles without infringing the traffic laws.

 

2. Although the appellant, who was unrepresented, told the Magistrate that he needed a driving licence to earn his living it is not apparent that the relevant discretion was considered or any application made in that context. In the circumstances it appears properly open to this Court to balance the hardship which will surely be suffered by the appellant if the disqualification remains unlimited against the interests of the public in road safety.

 

3. In this particular instance and in the light of his good driving record in relation to goods vehicles I feel it reasonable to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant. Accordingly the appeal is allowed to the extent that the disqualification will apply only to private vehicles.

 

 

 

 

(M. Kempster)

Justice of Appeal

 

 

Representation:

Mr. Frank Wong (D.L.A ) for appellant

Mr. J. Abbott for D.P.P.