THE QUEEN v. TONG CHUN CHUEN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL No. 664 of 1989

_____________

BETWEEN

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant was convicted on a charge of careless driving, fined $300, and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 3 months. A further order was made that he was to take a test before a further licence could be granted or his current licence renewed.

2. The incident out of which the charge arose was a relatively minor traffic accident in which the Appellant as a taxi driver ran into the wear of a private car.

3. The learned magistrate's reasons for ordering that the Appellant undergo a test is stated in his statement of findings in the following way:

"I imposed a fine of $300 to be paid within 4 months but I was also deeply concerned lest a man with a drug problem should be driving a taxi around. There was no evidence that this accident was related to drug consumption but, since a taxi driver literally has people's lives in his hands, I wanted to ensure that he was fit to resume driving upon his release from the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. I therefore imposed a 3 months disqualification with a requirement that he take a test of competence to drive before a further licence was granted. I had in mind that in order to obtain a fresh licence the Defendant would have to satisfy the authorities of his physical fitness to drive before such a licence would be issued."

4. The Appellant was undergoing treatment at a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre at the time having been sentenced to such detention on the 20th February 1989. The date of this traffic offence conviction was 31st of March 1989.

5. The Appellant does not appeal against the fine nor the order of disqualification, the period of the latter having elapsed. He was released from the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre on the 25th July 1989 and pursues this appeal in order to have the order that he take another driving test set aside.

6. The magistrate's concern was understandable, but in ordering that the Appellant take another test he assumed that the Appellant on his release from the Drug Addiction Treatment Centres would still be drug dependant. The Drug Addiction Treatment Centres do have a commendable record in relation to reform of drug addicts. Although many drug addicts who undergo treatment at Drug Addiction Treatment Centres, appear before the court again on charges related to drugs, there are many more who never appear before the courts again. The decision to release a detainee is usually batted on evidence of benefit from the treatment received. So it ought to be assumed that a person released from a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre is free of his problem at least at that particular time.

7. Accordingly, therefore, it should have been assumed here hat on his release this Appellant would no longer be drug dependant and that there was no need for him to undergo a further test. I think Chat the order was wrong and I accordingly allow the appeal and quash the magistrate's order.