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
Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
Date of Hearing: 17 January 2001
Date of Determination: 17 January 2001
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 fromholding or obtaining a driving licence for 18 months. His appeal to the Court of First Instance against his disqualification wasdismissed and his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was also refused. He now applies to this Committeeon 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 theway and for telling lies in court, his own lawyers in the courts below for not discharging their duties and the magistrate and thejudge for being biased against him. The only person he has not blamed is himself. He also refers to other drivers having been givenmuch 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 doublewhite lines onto the opposite carriageway. While on the wrong side of the road, he knocked down a pedestrian who was then crossingthe pedestrian crossing. He admitted that he had seen the pedestrian before he started his manoeuvre and was aware of the dangerinvolved. It is fortunate that no one got killed. The magistrate found him to be deliberately taking a risk in order to get morepassengers 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 welljustified.
4. We see no injustice in this case. The application is refused.
Applicant in person
Mr Alain SHAM and Mr D.F. Ozorio (of the Department of Justice) for the respondent