THE QUEEN v. YEUNG CHING MAN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 169 OF 1992

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

BETWEEN

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to permitting a person to use a motor vehicle without 3rd party insurance before Mr Leung at San Po Kong Magistrates Court. He was fined $1,000 and disqualified for 12 months. It is against the latter order that he now appeals.

2. The insurance policy for the appellant's car expired on 5th June 1991 and in mid-May the insurance company refused to renew it on fully comprehensive terms. Cheung King-chung, the appellant's personal assistant who handled all matters relating to his car, told the appellant not to drive until the mater was resolved.

3. On 7th or 8th June an insurance broker,Yip Chun-kee, found an insurance company willing to insure the vehicle, and told Mr Cheung to fax the company's agent particulars of the car.

4. A day or two later Mr Cheung phoned Mr Yip and asked him to obtain the insurance certificate. Mr Yip replied "It's O.K. ", although in fact he played no part in processing the insurance.

5. Mr Cheung then told the appellant that the car was now insured and he resumed driving. On 17th June he had an accident and enquiries revealed that the policy had out been issued. MrYip eventually received the insurance certificate, which was effective from 24th June, and paid the premium on behalf of the appellant.

6. The appellant told the magistrate that Mr Cheung had been his assistant for five years and there had been no problems in the past. He therefore believed him when he said the car was insured.

7. These facts were accepted by the magistrate, but he took the view that, having failed to call for the  policy, the appellant had no reasonable grounds for his belief and therefore there were no special reasons for not imposing disqualification.

8. Mrs Wacks, for the appellant, cited two recent Hong Kong decision in which this court found that the appellants had reasonable grounds for their belief. See R. v. Lee Kam-to [1980] HKLR 431 and R. v. Cheung Chu-bor [1989] 1 HKLR 180. Counsel concedes that the court in those cases may have been generous to the appellants, particularly in Lee Kam-to, but that the present appellant not only honestly believed Mr Cheung on account of their past relationship but, knowing that he had spoken to their broker, Mr Yip, also clearly had reasonable grounds for that belief.

9. I am satisfied that she is right. The appeal is allowed and the disqualification order quashed.