THE QUEEN v. LEE CHI KEUNG

HEADNOTE

Speeding - disqualification - period to run from date of order.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEALS NOS. 760 & 757 OF 1985

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. These two appeals were heard together. The appellant was convicted of speeding in each case, fined $250, disqualified for 12 months and ordered to be retested.

2. The first offence took place in January last year. The appellant pleaded guilty on 18th July. He had two previous speeding convictions - in 1982 and 1984 - and the magistrate made the mandatory order for disqualification, but he limited it to private cars.

3. On 8th August the appellant appeared again before the same magistrate and pleaded guilty to speeding in March. This time the magistrate imposed the same fine and made the same order for disqualification and retesting, except that he did not limit the former to private cars and he ordered that the second disqualification order run consecutively to the first.

4. I think he was right not to limit the second disqualification, but wrong to make the periods consecutive. If the second order were allowed to stand, the appellant would be allowed to drive vehicles other than private cars until July, when he would become completely disqualified. This is illogical.

5. There is, in any case, authority that any order of disqualification, discretionary or obligatory, must run from the moment it is pronounced. R. v. Higgins⁽¹⁾.

6. The appeal in Appeal No. 760/85 is allowed to the extent that the disqualification period shall run from the date of the order. The appeal in Appeal No. 757/85 is dismissed.

(1)    1973 R.T.R. 216