1 Aug 1979
The conviction was upheld because the magistrate expressly found the prosecution witnesses referred to the same incident and the evidence sufficed to convict; the failure to record advisement about the right to silence did not invalidate the conviction. The sentence of disqualification was excessive and was reduced from six months to three months.
11 Nov 1978
Because the facts showed momentary negligence rather than gross negligence or deliberate dangerous driving and there was no proof of racing or actual speed, the court substituted the custodial sentence with a fine while maintaining the disqualification period.
21 Dec 1972
Because the Full Court in Leung Tak-kuen held that the Ordinance permits a magistrate to limit disqualification to one class of vehicle, the appeal is allowed to that extent and the disqualification is limited accordingly; the fines as reduced by the magistrate remain unaltered.
5 Jun 1972
Given the paucity of factual particulars before the magistrate and the severe impact of disqualification on the appellant's livelihood, the one‑year disqualification was excessive; the appropriate remedial order is to discharge the disqualification and substitute an endorsement while upholding the fine.
26 Feb 1970
The appeal was dismissed because, on the facts and convictions showing repeated and deliberate breaches of traffic laws (including payment to obtain a clean licence), the aggregate sentence of twelve months' imprisonment and five years' disqualification were not excessive or unreasonable; the magistrate's sentencing was within proper exercise of discretion despite concerns about the absence of an initial written statement of facts.
13 May 1968
On the magistrate's limited findings, which established at most momentary carelessness and given the appellant's clear record, there was no support for a disqualification order; therefore the disqualification was quashed and replaced by endorsement of the licence.