25 Sept 2024
香港特別行政區 訴 陳愷灝
- Citation
- [2025] HKCFI 597
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA442/2023
上訴法院認為裁判官在量刑上未有錯誤適用法律或明顯不當：監禁式量刑對涉在停牌期間駕駛的罪行為合適，四個半星期的量刑起點及三星期監禁的判處在一般量刑範圍內；15個月停牌在法定範圍內且上訴人未能提出足夠的特別理由要求自案發日起計或縮短停牌期，因此上訴不成立，維持原判。
Hong Kong Case Law
Disqualification period
6 Jun 2023
HKSAR v. WONG KAM SHING
- Citation
- [2023] HKCA 726
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC46/2022
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the sentencing judge conducted a careful, comprehensive analysis, applied the correct starting point, considered aggravating and mitigating factors, administered a proper guilty plea discount and the totality principle, and arrived at a 6‑year sentence that was within the District Court ceiling and not manifestly excessive; the applicant's delay and explanations did not justify granting leave.
9 Sept 2008
HKSAR v. SIU TING CHEONG
- Citation
- HKSAR v. SIU TING CHEONG
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA706/2008
The court dismissed the appeal because the magistrate did not misapply his sentencing discretion: the appellant's breath alcohol level (64 micrograms/100ml, nearly three times the legal limit), his conduct in leaving the scene which delayed testing, and his prior careless driving convictions justified a disqualification period of 15 months consistent with authorities; no irrationality or unfair bias was shown.
20 Feb 2006
HKSAR v. LI CHAU WING
- Citation
- HKSAR v. LI CHAU WING
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC347/2005
The appropriate sentence was a substituted custodial term of 5 months imprisonment; notwithstanding time already spent in custody the court upheld a two-year driving disqualification because the offence was among the most serious, the applicant had a prior careless driving conviction, and public protection required that period of disqualification.
2 Mar 2005
HKSAR v. WO ON SONYA
- Citation
- HKSAR v. WO ON SONYA
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA1282/2004
The appeal is dismissed; the magistrate did not err in principle and the two-year disqualification consecutive to the existing period is not manifestly excessive because, even accepting mitigation at its highest, the appellant's conduct in driving while disqualified and uninsured justified the sentence imposed.
8 Dec 1998
HKSAR v. LAU SHU WING
- Citation
- HKSAR v. LAU SHU WING
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA1124/1998
Where the evidential breath alcohol level exceeds twice the prescribed limit the magistrate was entitled to impose an 18-month disqualification and the Court of First Instance will not disturb that sentence absent manifest excess or error of principle.
14 Nov 1980
YIU CHUNG-FU v. THE QUEEN
- Citation
- YIU CHUNG-FU v. THE QUEEN
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC883/1980
The mandatory one‑month imprisonment under s.25 was properly imposed because the magistrate did not accept that special circumstances existed; however, on appeal the court exercised its discretionary power to suspend that custodial sentence in light of the appellant's personal circumstances (youth, otherwise clear record apart from motoring offences, and his pregnant wife), while increasing the period of disqualification due to his bad motoring record.
13 May 1978
CHAN MAN-HOI v. THE QUEEN
- Citation
- CHAN MAN-HOI v. THE QUEEN
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC308/1978
The two year disqualification was excessive in the circumstances and should be reduced to the statutory minimum of one year; appeal allowed in part and disqualification reduced to one year dating from the sentence.
3 Jan 1973
CHAN KAM CHUNG v. THE QUEEN
- Citation
- CHAN KAM CHUNG v. THE QUEEN
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC676/1972
The Court held there is no power to order disqualification for more than twelve months under the Insurance Ordinance because s.4(2)(a) is a saving clause that does not itself confer substantive power and s.23 of the Traffic Ordinance does not operate to extend the Traffic Ordinance's disqualification power to convictions under the Insurance Ordinance; therefore the magistrate's disqualification was reduced to the twelve month minimum and confined to the class of vehicle involved.