18 Mar 2024
P1 and P2 being statutory certificates under s9 were admissible and unrebutted; s6A precluded a further 3‑point reduction because appellant had already obtained such a reduction within two years; therefore the appellant had 16 demerit points within the relevant period and the conviction and the 6‑month disqualification under s8(3)(b) were correctly entered and must be upheld.
7 Dec 2022
The trial judge correctly accepted the prosecution experts and rejected the defence expert as unreliable; the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was driving at 119 km/h and the sentence imposed (HK$2,000 fine, six‑month disqualification and requirement to complete a driving improvement course) complied with statutory requirements and was not manifestly excessive, therefore the sentencing appeal is dismissed.
18 Mar 2022
The magistrate misapplied the law by importing the Cap.374 'special reasons' standard and by treating 'extreme hardship' as the sole basis for exercising discretion under Cap.375 s8; on rehearing the High Court accepted that the 22‑year interval since prior disqualification is a legitimate factor to consider under s8 and, applying the correct legal test and facts, reduced the disqualification from 6 months to 5 months while rejecting the 'extreme hardship' contention and refusing admission of the discharge note as fresh evidence.
24 Dec 2014
The court held that although the appellant's driving demonstrated deficiencies, his conduct did not amount to the degree of recklessness or create a substantial ongoing risk warranting a disqualification. Applying the Cooksley principles, the risk was limited and the one‑month suspension was disproportionate, therefore the disqualification was set aside.
23 Mar 2012
The magistrate did not abuse judicial discretion by adjourning the hearing until the appellant's imminent release and lawfully imposed a six‑month cancellation under s8(3)(b) of Cap.375 because the appellant had accumulated the requisite points within two years and had a prior disqualification; there is no statutory basis for the appellant's assertion that an earlier point would have automatically expired to defeat the application.
14 Feb 1996
The learned Magistrate properly assessed credibility, was entitled to reject PW5 in whole for sound reasons based on demeanour and inconsistencies, and the combined eyewitness and physical evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant drove through a red-controlled zebra crossing recklessly causing death; conviction is safe. The original sentence of four months imprisonment was not wrong in principle but, having regard to time already served, was reduced to two months immediate release while maintaining an 18-month driving disqualification.
21 Jun 1995
The conviction was upheld because the magistrate was entitled to accept the prosecution witness's evidence of excessive speed and careless reversing, and there was sufficient evidence of carelessness; however the court varied sentence by quashing the three‑month disqualification because it was not justified on the facts and the magistrate failed to give adequate consideration to its effect on the appellant.
18 Feb 1992
Disqualification under s.8 Cap.375 is a civil consequence/regulatory disability aimed at road safety and not 'punishment' within Article 11(6); alternatively, even if punitive, it does not amount to being punished again because a person is not finally punished until all possible penal consequences are exhausted; therefore s.8 is not inconsistent with Article 11(6) and the disqualification stands.
5 Dec 1985
The court exercised the discretion in section 69(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Ordinance and held that, after balancing the appellant's livelihood hardship against public safety and considering the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's record, the public interest did not demand an unlimited ban; therefore the mandatory disqualification was lawfully limited to taxis.
16 Jun 1973
Conviction for careless driving was upheld because the magistrate accepted the complainant's account; however the disqualification order was quashed because the facts demonstrated momentary carelessness, the appellant had a long driving history with minimal prior offending, and under Cheung Chi Shing disqualification is reserved for 'bad' cases of carelessness.