Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHUNG

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appeal is dismissed because the conduct constituted a flagrant breach of a disqualification order and was followed by repeat offending nine days later, making immediate custody appropriate; mitigation (including sale of the vehicle) did not outweigh the aggravating factors.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; sentence of two months' imprisonment affirmed

02

Material facts

Parties

Appellant

Appellant Counsel: Mr C S Fu

Respondent

Respondent Counsel: Ms Wong Sze-lai Lily

Amounts and remedies

  • Immediate Custodial Sentence (months): 2
  • Disqualification Period (months): 3
  • Interval to Subsequent Offending (days): 9

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Appeal Against Sentence for Driving Whilst Disqualified / Appellate Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Counsel (Mr C S Fu) argued for mitigation and urged that everything possible was said to prevent the custodial sentence from continuing, including suggestions of employment change, an alleged telephone call about the child as an emergency, and subsequent sale of the motor vehicle to show no intention to reoffend.
Respondent
The Respondent (Ms Wong) and the court relied on the flagrant nature of the breach, absence of any genuine emergency, facile alternatives (taxi), and the fact the appellant drove again nine days later leading to a suspended sentence; these aggravating factors and the need for deterrence justified immediate custody.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Criminal law/road traffic sentencing practice

    Driving whilst disqualified is an offence that attracts imprisonment as a permissible outcome of sentence

  2. 02

    Sentencing principles/common law

    A defendant's whole character and subsequent conduct are relevant to sentencing and may aggravate the penalty

  3. 03

    Sentencing practice and public interest considerations

    Deterrence and preservation of the efficacy of disqualification justify immediate custody for flagrant or repeated breaches

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the conduct constituted a flagrant breach of a disqualification order and was followed by repeat offending nine days later, making immediate custody appropriate; mitigation (including sale of the vehicle) did not outweigh the aggravating factors.

Obiter and limits

  • A single opportunity to drive whilst disqualified without imprisonment would undermine the usefulness of disqualification as a sanction.
  • Community service and suspended sentences remain alternatives in appropriate cases, but must be reserved for cases that warrant mercy.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

  • Appeal dismissed; sentence of two months' imprisonment affirmed

Source and reliance status

Court of First Instance · 26 January 2007

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court of First Instance

Judgment· 26 January 2007

HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHUNG

bjbj Appellant ____ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Line in Court Date of Hearing: 26 January 2007 Date of Judgment: 26 January 2007 ____

J U D G M E N T ____ 1. This is an appeal against sentence for driving whilst disqualified. The appellant received a sentence of 2 months' imprisonment.

2. The facts were that on 11 July at Fanling Magistracy, he was disqualified from driving for 3 months. At 6.40 on that very day, he was driving a motor vehicle. One can find it hard to imagine a more flagrant breach. It is suggested that he had obtained employment other than as a transport worker, which was his job previously, between the disqualification and 6.40 pm and that it was on receiving a telephone call that his child had fallen over, that he decided to drive. As the magistrate pointed out, there is no suggestion that it was a genuine emergency and certainly the fact remains he could easily have taken a taxi or some other form of transport if it had been.

3. Mr Fu has said everything it is possible to say to try and stop the sentence of 2 months' imprisonment still running. He may have gone some way to seeking to persuade, save that it became apparent to me - I had not realised it before - that on 20 July, nine days later, this appellant was driving his vehicle again.

4. He appeared in court on 21 August, pleaded guilty, and was dealt with and given a suspended sentence of imprisonment for that driving. It is common ground that the magistrate who passed that sentence was in ignorance of the fact that there was an outstanding case following the driving of 11 July. This sentence that is appealed now, was passed on 24 October. I am afraid learning of that drives from my mind any thought of the exercise of mercy.

5. Driving whilst disqualified is an offence that attracts sentences of imprisonment. Sometimes it is suspended; sometimes it is not. There is the alternative of community service obviously available. If it came to be thought that you could have one go at driving whilst disqualified and not be imprisoned, then the usefulness of disqualification would be greatly diminished. Motorists must appreciate that if they breach the court order, then they are in jeopardy of being locked up. Obviously, the cases that deserve suspension and that deserve immediate imprisonment have to be identified.

6. For the reasons I have given, the flagrant breach on the day in question and the subsequent behaviour of driving whilst disqualified again, both make this an appropriate case for immediate custody.

7. I note that the magistrate said that he regarded the subsequent conviction of the driving whilst disqualified that attracted the suspended sentence on 21 August as irrelevant. I take it that what he meant by that was that it lacked the aggravating force that it would otherwise have had if it had antedated the conduct in question here. But it cannot be irrelevant because, generally speaking, a man's whole character and behaviour is taken into account when it comes to sentencing.

8. Mr Fu urges upon me to look at his subsequent conduct in selling the motor vehicle in question, demonstrating he does not intend to drive it again. Equally, when looking at that, I also look at the fact that he offended subsequently, having been stopped by the police on 11 July only nine days later. If I were to regard that as completely irrelevant, what would happen is that the aggravation of repeatedly driving whilst disqualified would be absent from the sentence of the man completely and that would not be right. It would offend commonsense. So even thought Mr Fu has said everything possible he can on the appellant's behalf, this appeal against sentence is dismissed. (P Line) Deputy High Court Judge Ms Wong Sze-lai Lily, Senior Government Counsel, of the Department of Justice for the Respondent Mr C S Fu, instructed by Messrs Ko & Chow, for the Appellant

PAGE -

PAGE CRT3/26.1.2007/MMcG HCMA1070/2006/Reasons for Judgment

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T U V &`#$ JUDGE.DOT setup Microsoft Word 9.0 judiciary Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.