13 Jul 2021
Personal circumstances of the offender (including need to obtain employment) do not amount to "special reasons" under s4(2)(a) Cap 272 to avoid or reduce the mandatory minimum 12‑month disqualification; therefore there was no arguable ground to vary the disqualification and the out‑of‑time application for leave was refused.
19 Jul 2011
The magistrate correctly concluded that, although the careless driving was minor, the failure to provide a breath specimen attracted a mandatory two-year disqualification absent special reasons; no special reasons existed in this case, so the mandatory disqualification and requirement to attend a driving improvement course were properly imposed; the fines were within proper sentencing bounds and the appeal was dismissed.
18 Dec 2007
The disqualification order for 12 months under section 2(a) of Cap.272 is mandatory absent special reasons; the magistrate correctly found no special reasons on the facts, the insurer's evidence showed no cover because the appellant lacked a valid licence, and therefore the appeal against the disqualification must be dismissed.
25 May 2007
The Court of Appeal (Deputy High Court Judge Longley) held that where an owner was actively misled by a driver and it was reasonable to rely on the driver's assurance that he held a licence, those circumstances can constitute special reasons to disapply the mandatory minimum disqualification under s.4(2)(a); on the facts the disqualification was removed while the fine was upheld.
8 Sept 2006
Fresh evidence was refused because even if admitted it would not afford any ground for allowing the appeal; more importantly, delegation of insurance renewal to an agent without residual supervision does not constitute a 'special reason' to avoid the mandatory disqualification under the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, and the appellant's failure to verify renewal defeated his claim of an honest and reasonable belief.
30 Sept 2004
The mandatory six‑month disqualification under s.46AA(2)(a) Cap.109 must be imposed in the absence of 'special reasons'; ordinary personal or economic hardship does not constitute 'special reasons', and the appellate court found the HK$3,500 fine not excessive given the offence's prevalence and the appellant's prior conviction.
10 Jan 1986
For the purposes of s41(2) the relevant dates are the dates of conviction (not dates of commission); fixed penalty proceedings do not count as convictions for mandatory disqualification; the appellant had three convictions within three years so a mandatory 12‑month disqualification was required, but under s69(2)(b) the disqualification must be limited to the class of vehicle involved (motor cycles).
8 Oct 1985
The magistrate did not err in refusing to limit the disqualification because the appellant's serious and repeated traffic offences justified full protection of the public and the imposed hardship was not excessive given the appellant's circumstances; therefore the full mandatory disqualification stands.
25 Jun 1985
The court held the prior speeding convictions were neither admitted nor proven; the magistrate was not entitled to take judicial notice of or unilaterally rely on records of other proceedings to establish previous convictions; therefore the mandatory 12-month disqualification under s.41(2) and mandatory retesting under s.70 did not lawfully apply and those orders were quashed while the monetary fine was confirmed.
27 Sept 1979
Mere forgetfulness, absence of intent, or a short lapse (six days) between policy expiry and the offence do not amount to 'special reasons' under s.4(2)(a) Cap.272; the magistrate was wrong to treat the existence of a prior policy/short interval as special reasons and erred in reducing the mandatory minimum disqualification; the appropriate sentence is a fine of $200 and disqualification for twelve months.