R. v. TSANG PO TONG

HCMA000476/1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.476 OF 1996

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

BETWEEN
	THE QUEEN	Respondent
	AND
	TSANG PO TONG	Appellant

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

Coram : Hon Patrick Chan, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 25 July 1996

Date of judgment : 25 July 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to careless driving. He was fined $2,000, disqualified for 6 months and ordered to take a re-test.

2. The facts are these. While driving in a vehicle, he emerged from a minor road into a major road. It is not clear from the evidence and the admitted facts that he did or did not stop at a give way sign. Anyway, as he emerged from the road, he did not keep a proper look out for on-coming traffic and a car which was travelling on the main road could not brake or swerve in time and a collision took place and a driver was injured.

3. The appellant was only twenty years of age. He obtained his licence in April 1994. He got a clear record which does not mean very much.

4. The learned Magistrate said that it appeared from what the appellant said in mitigation that he was not conversant with the stopping distances, that his manner of driving constituted danger and that he should be kept off the road because there had been too many accidents by young inexperienced careless driver. She also thought that there was no good reason why she should not disqualify the appellant.

5. Before me counsel submitted that there was no evidence before the court that the appellant had failed to halt at a give way sign and I agree with him. It is not clear from the admitted facts. This is certainly a case where the driving was poor. But in my view, looking at the admitted facts, it is not one of the worst cases of careless driving. The injuries of the driver and the damage to the cars were minor. This could be just luck or could reflect on the degree of the appellant's carelessness. I would tend to give the benefit of doubt to him. I notice that although he is a young man, he does not seem to be an irresponsible person. In the circumstances, I do not think he should be disqualified. There is no statutory requirement for disqualification in the case of careless driving. So I would allow the appeal, set aside the disqualification and the order for re-test.

Representation:

Mr Tam Sze Lok, C.C., for Crown

Mr Jimmy Kwok, inst'd by D.L.A., for Appellant

	(Patrick Chan)
	Judge of the High Court