HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1995

THE QUEEN v. LI LOK KIN

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
36605-EN-1995-03-16

THE QUEEN v. LI LOK KIN

HTML content

HCMA000085/1995

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

 

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 85 OF 1995

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

 

BETWEEN  
 THE QUEEN 
 and 
 LI LOK KIN 

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

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Wong in Court

Date of Hearing: 16th March 1995

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 16th March 1995

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant, a taxi driver, pleaded guilty before a magistrate to a charge of soliciting passengers contrary to Regulations 40 and 57(3) of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations, Cap. 374. He was sentenced to a fine of $4,000.00 and 3 months' imprisonment, suspended for 3 years. It is against the suspended sentence that he now appeals.

2. The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $5,000.00 and imprisonment for 6 months. The appellant has five similar previous convictions within one year between April 1993 and March 1994. On each of the last two occasions, he was fined $2,000.00. I agree with the magistrate that a deterrent sentence is necessary to deter the Appellant from committing further similar offences. Bearing in mind the maximum sentence for this offence, I take the view that a fine of $4,000.00, which represents 80% of the maximum fine, coupled with a suspended sentence is manifestly excessive. The Appellant now knows that he will face the prospect of going to prison if he re-offends. In future, he cannot be heard that he has not been warned nor can he complain any sense of grievance.

3. In the circumstances, I would allow the appeal and set aside the suspended sentence. The fine of $4,000.00 will not be disturbed.

 

 

 (Michael Wong)
 Judge of the High Court

 

Representation:

Mr. Cheung Wai Sun, D.P.C.C. for the Crown.

Appellant in person.