-15-
distinct offences with completely different elements and targeting different criminal conduct. In principle, consecutive sentences should be passed. However, considering the totality principle, we are minded to order partly consecutive and partly concurrent sentences in that 2½ years of the sentence for count 2 are to run consecutively to that of count 1, the rest to run concurrently, resulting in a total term of 9 years. We consider that this overall term should sufficiently reflect the Defendant’s culpability in the two offences and the abhorrence of society, at the same time, achieving the deterrent effect required.
44. Given that the Defendant used his motorcycle in the course of the commission of the present offences, we also have to consider, apart from the aforesaid imprisonment term, whether a disqualification order[1] is appropriate. Plainly, in light of the fact that the Defendant was only holding a probationary driving licence at the time; the fact that he had 4 traffic convictions at the time of commission of the present offences; and the very dangerous manner in which the Defendant drove the motorcycle on the day in question, this is an obvious case in which a disqualification order should be imposed and Mr Grossman did not seek to argue otherwise.
- ↑ Section 69(1)(h) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374, which reads: “(1) Without prejudice to any other provision relating to the penalty that may be, or is required to be, imposed for an offence, a court or magistrate before which a person is convicted of any of the following offences may order him to be disqualified for such period as the court or magistrate thinks fit—(h) any offence during the course of which, or in order to escape apprehension for which, he uses a motor vehicle.”.
