Spenser Wilkinson J:

The accused was charged with employing a person to drive a motor car who was not a holder of a driving licence, contrary to s. 3 (1) of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Offences) Proclamation, and also with permitting the vehicle to be driven without there being in force in relation to the use of the said vehicle a policy of insurance, contrary to reg. 3 (I) of the Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks Regulations.

The accused pleaded guilty and having been convicted on his plea was fined $40 on the first charge and $75 on the second charge.The following note by the Magistrate appears on the record:

Accused states he is occupied as a traveller by Messrs.Guthrie & Co. and travel by road.He is thus dependent on his car for his livelihood.No suspension ordered.

Mr. Meek who appeared on behalf of the accused on the hearing of the revision relied on the case of Rex V. Lim Kian Soo [1950] 1 MLRH 122, [1950] 1 MLJ 181 as authority for the proposition that the question of disqualification is entirely discretionary in the Magistrate.Mr. Meek was apparently under the impression that this was a decision of the Court of Appeal, but agreed after further consideration of the report that it was the majority decision of a Court of three Judges.It is, therefore, a High Court decision and in so far as it conflicts with the decision given in Kuala Lumpur in 1949 in the case of PP v. M Karthiah [1853] MLJ 52 I feel bound to follow The Federation decision.Although the then Chief Justice considered that this decision was of sufficient importance to cause copies of the judgment to be circulated to all the Courts of the Federation it was not reported until 1953 and I think it more than probable that had this case been drawn to the attention of the High Court in Singapore that Court might have decided the case of Rex V. Lim Kian Soo [1950] 1 MLRH 122, [1950] 1 MLJ 181 differently.However this may be, the case of Public Prosecutor V. M Karthiah [1949] 1 MLRH 498; [1953] 1 MLJ 52 has, as far as I am aware, been consistently followed in the Federation ever since it was decided, and is in accordance with a large body of decisions in the United Kingdom.

The report of Rex V. Lim Kian Soo [1950] 1 MLRH 122, [1950] 1 MLJ 181 is unsatisfactory in various respects.In the first place the headnote is inaccurate as it includes as part of the decision certain remarks made by Evans J in his dissenting judgment.Moreover, as there is no indication in the report what the facts of the case were, it is impossible to discover precisely to what extent the Court intended to depart from the decisions of the English Courts.As I understand the case it suggests that the Courts in this country rave a wider discretion than the Courts in England in the matter of refraining from disqualification. I would add that the learned Chief Justice in his judgment, referring to the case of Whittal v. Kirby [1947] 1 KB 194 said:

It has to be considered whether this Court should follow that case, which is, of course only of persuasive authority so far as we are concerned.

And apparently dealt with that case as though it stood by itself.But Whittal v. Kirby [1947] 1 KB 194 is only one of a series of English cases which have all been decided in the same sense.In Knowler v. Rennison [1947] 1 KB 488 at p. 496 the judgment of the Court says:

The decision may now be said to be uniform throughout the United Kingdom that hardship is not a special reason for refraining from imposing this punishment.

The judgment in PP v. M Karthiah [1949] 1 MLRH 498, [1953] MLJ 52 quoted and adopted the following passage from the judgment in Whittal v. Kirby [1947] 1 KB 194, which indicates sufficiently clearly that the reason given by the learned Magistrate for refraining from imposing disqualification in the present case was wrong:

In my opinion Magistrates........... must take it to be the law that no considerations of financial hardship or of the offender being before the Court for the firs