CHAN CHI KEUNG v. HKSAR

FAMC000024/2000

FAMC No. 24 of 2000

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 24 OF 2000 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM HCMA NO. 640 OF 2000)

_____________________

_____________________

_________________________

DETERMINATION

_________________________

Mr Justice Chan PJ :

1. The applicant was convicted of reckless driving, contrary to s.37(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374. He was sentenced by the magistrate to 3 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months, fined $5,000 and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 18 months. His appeal to the Court of First Instance against his disqualification was dismissed and his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was also refused. He now applies to this Committee on the ground as stated in his application that he has suffered a grave and substantial injustice.

2. In his written submissions, he puts the blame on the driver of the public light bus in front of him for deliberately blocking the way and for telling lies in court, his own lawyers in the courts below for not discharging their duties and the magistrate and the judge for being biased against him. The only person he has not blamed is himself. He also refers to other drivers having been given much lighter sentences than what he got. We do not think there is any substance in these submissions.

3. He was a professional driver for over 30 years. Since 1996, he had 22 road traffic convictions, although none for reckless driving. It is clear what he did was a very bad piece of driving. He overtook the public light bus in front of him by crossing the double white lines onto the opposite carriageway. While on the wrong side of the road, he knocked down a pedestrian who was then crossing the pedestrian crossing. He admitted that he had seen the pedestrian before he started his manoeuvre and was aware of the danger involved. It is fortunate that no one got killed. The magistrate found him to be deliberately taking a risk in order to get more passengers and that makes him a danger to the public. The sentence, in our view, was within the powers and discretion of the magistrate. There is nothing to show that she had wrongly exercised such powers and discretion. In fact, we think the disqualification is well justified.

4. We see no injustice in this case. The application is refused.

Representation: