HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1996

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHOI MAN

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
32267-EN-1996-03-01

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHOI MAN

HTML content

HCMA000057/1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.57 OF 1996

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

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
CHAN CHOI MANAppellant

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

Coram : Hon Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 27 February 1996

Date of handing down judgment : 1 March 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This was an appeal against sentence. The Appellant was convicted on his own plea of driving while disqualified, driving without third party risk insurance and driving in excess of the speed limit. The sentences were respectively one month's imprisonment, disqualification for 12 months and a fine of $3,000 and a fine of $500. The Appellant appealed mainly against the term of imprisonment.

2. He was certainly in dire financial circumstances at the time of the offence, being a taxi driver and just having been disqualified, he had lost his livelihood. He told me on the appeal that when the disqualification order was imposed there was one week left to run on the lease of the taxi, that if he did not operate the taxi he would have to forfeit $280 on a daily basis, and that is why he committed the offence. I accepted that. He told me also that he was now receiving public assistance of just over $5,000 per month. His two sons, aged 11 and 15, were in court. The Appellant is the sole supporter of the children.

3. I felt that as an act of mercy in a case of this nature, I could suspend the prison sentence, which I did. The appeal was therefore allowed to the extent that the one month's prison sentence was suspended for 12 months. Otherwise the penalty remained the same.

Representation:

Mr Leung Kit Wai, S.C.C., for Crown

Appellant (Chan Choi Man) in person

- 2 -

(J.M. Duffy)
Judge of the High Court