HKSAR v. YIP TUNG MING

DCCC 1353/2024

[2026] HKDC 303

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1353 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Causing death by dangerous driving" (Charge 1); a charge of "Causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving" (Charge 2); and a charge of "Using a motor vehicle with an illegal visual display unit" (Charge 3).

Summary of Facts

Background

2.  Tate's Cairn Highway (Kowloon bound)  in Shatin is a one-way three-lane carriageway. The subject traffic accidents in this case took place near Chainage 16.1S ("the Location").

3.  About 10:37 a.m. on 4 March 2024 (a Monday), an accident involving a taxi SN5868 (V1)  and a private car UX2723 (V2)  occured in the 2^nd left lane at the Location.  V1's rear nearside collided with V2's front offside ("the 1^st Collision").  V1 was driven by Mr. Ng (PW1), whereas V2 was driven by Mr. Leung ("the deceased").  At that time, the weather was drizzling, the road surface was wet, the traffic flow was moderate, and the speed limit was 80 km/h.

4.  After the 1^st Collision, both V1 and V2 were stationary in the 2^nd left lane.  V1 was in front of V2.  Both PW1 and the deceased have alighted from their respective vehicles.  They were standing on the 2^nd left lane near the front offside of V2 discussing the accident.  The hazard lights of V2 were turned on and flashing.

Charges 1 and 2

5.  Shortly after the 1^st Collision, the defendant was driving a medium goods vehicle WK4372 (V3)  on the 2^nd left lane approaching the Location at the speed of 74±7 km/h.  There were no objects between V3 and V2.  As PW1 and the deceased were standing on the 2^nd left lane talking, V3 rammed into V2 ("the 2^nd Collision), sweeping V2 off to the 1^st left land and pushing V1 to the right.  V1 ended up lying horizontally in the 2^nd left lane.  The defendant steered V3 to the right, crashing into V1 (the 3^rd Collision).

6.  Both PW1 and the deceased were knocked down.  V1 to V3 were seriously damaged upon impact.  The defendant was not injured.

7.  The deceased was unconscious at the scene.  During the journey to the hospital, his breathing and heartbeat stopped.  He was certified dead at 11:38 a.m. on the same day.  Autopsy concluded that the medical cause of death was multiple injuries.

8.  PW1 was taken to the hospital in a conscious state.  He sustained a right forehead laceration with oozing and a right scalp laceration.  He was later transferred to the Intensive Care Unit on the same day.  He was found to have a deep laceration on his right forehead, a laceration over his right lateral scalp with bleeding, a right upper lip laceration and a left ear laceration.  He received plastic surgery.  PW1 was discharged from the hospital on 11 March 2024.

9.  A Government Chemist concluded that the stopping distance required for V3 to avoid the accident was about 73 metres.  Yet the distance between V3 and V2 right before the 2^nd Collision was 101 metres.

Charge 3

10.  Examination of V3 discovered that a DVD player was installed in front of the driver's seat.  A large amount of miscellaneous objects were also placed in front of the driver's seat, which obstructed the driver's view.

Mitigation & Sentence

11.  The defendant is 60 and has 3 conviction records involving 3 offences (none related to driving).  Regarding his traffic record, he obtained his driver's licence in July 1987.  He received 3 fixed penalty tickets and has 1 conviction for "Careless driving".  The defendant is divorced and resides alone.  He was a truck driver earning about $16,000 per month.  His 3 children live with his ex-wife.  

12.  In mitigation, defence counsel Mr. Cheng, on behalf of the defendant, offered his sincere apologies to the families of the deceased and PW1 by reading out the defendant's letter in open court.  Regarding the timeliness of the guilty pleas, Mr. Cheng informed me that the present trial date was fixed in April 2025.  In December 2025, defence solicitors wrote to the prosecution indicating the defendant's intention to plead guilty to all 3 charges.  Mr. Cheng explained that the defendant has all along accepted his wrongdoing.  He sought to obtain legal advice on "Careless driving", as opposed to "Dangerous driving".

13.  To the victims and their families, a traffic accident which involves fatalities or serious personal injuries must be one of the most tragic events which could happen to them.  It saddens me each time when I need to deal with a case in which someone has lost his/her life or has been seriously injured as a result of a traffic accident.

14.  I have viewed the dash cam footage of VD3937 and the back dash cam footage of V1 numerous times.  The duration of the accident was a few seconds only.  But in those few seconds, the deceased lost his life and PW1 was seriously injured.  That is the reason why the court must instil into the minds of the general public that driving (whether in a professional or recreational capacity)  is a privilege ‒ a privilege with great responsibilities attached.  It is a message which cannot be stressed enough.

15.  In the course of sentencing, the court needs to bear in mind the principles of retribution, deterrence and denunciation in order to arrive at a punishment which is balanced, proportionate and just[2].  I must also consider the hardship caused to the families of the deceased and PW1 as well as their grievances and resentment[3].

16.  The courts have repeatedly emphasized the importance of deterrence when sentencing in cases related to dangerous driving.  I have reminded myself of the sentencing principles[4] set out by the Court of Appeal in SJ v Poon Wing Kay [2007] 1 HKLRD 660, in particular paragraph 10(4)

"While a list can be drawn up of aggravating and mitigating factors, a sentencing court must however look at the overall circumstances and the overall culpability of the offender. In assessing the overall seriousness of a crime, culpability is often the dominant factor. It is not a case of counting the number of aggravating or mitigating factors and then arriving by mechanical means at the relevant sentence. Sentencing is not quite that exact an exercise and courts must be sufficiently nimble to take into account the overall picture in order to arrive at an appropriate sentence…"

17.  In HKSAR v Lei Tin Seng [2011] 1 HKLRD 341, Yeung JA (as he then was)  held :-

"17. This Court has repeatedly stressed that a vehicle in the hands of an irresponsible driver is an extremely lethal weapon. A driver should always be careful when he drives so as to avoid killing/causing injuries to innocent citizens.

---

19. The Court is duty bound to give out a clear message that anyone who commits the offence of dangerous driving causing death will be severely punished.

---

22. This Court cannot overlook the fact that if a driver is sentenced to imprisonment for a traffic accident, that is in itself a very harsh punishment regardless of the length of imprisonment."

18.  I accept Mr. Cheng's submission that no aggravating features (such as speeding, running a red light, drink driving or disobeying any traffic signs)  existed in the present case.  On the other hand, I am puzzled by the defendant's failure to notice the presence of V2 and to brake in a timely fashion.  Based on the dash cam footage of VD3937, the subject highway segment was a straight road.  The brake lights of V3 lit up only 1 second before it rammed into the rear of V2 (i.e. the 2^nd Collision).  How could the defendant have missed V2, with its hazard lights flashing, in broad daylight?  According to expert opinion, the defendant had a clear and unobstructed view of V2 for at least 101 metres before impact.  Regrettably, he committed a serious oversight—a mistake so serious that it cannot be treated lightly.  An immediate custodial sentence is inevitable.

19.  Although the deceased and PW1 might have exposed themselves to some degree of danger by standing in the middle of a highway to discuss the 1^st Collision, their lives were vulnerable if hit by an oncoming vehicle.  It may not seem fair, but it is a fact of life that drivers of motor vehicles are expected to carry a heavier burden in most situations when unprotected road users such as the deceased and PW1 are involved.  The bigger and heavier a vehicle, the more lethal it becomes. 

20.  In my view, it was not difficult at all for the defendant to have noticed the presence of V2.  I must ask once again "How could he have missed it?" When determining the starting point, I treat the defendant as someone who has never been to prison before.  Since one person died and one person was seriously injured, I consider the defendant's driving manner and attitude to fall towards the higher end of the intermediate culpability category on the Cooksley's scale[5].

21.  For Charge 1, I adopt a starting point of 27 months' imprisonment.  With the late guilty plea, I sentence the defendant to 21 months' imprisonment for this charge.

22.  For Charge 2, I adopt a starting point of 21 months' imprisonment.  With the late guilty plea, I sentence the defendant to 16 months' imprisonment for this charge.

23.  I have reminded myself not to double count the aggravating features.  Charge 2 is an aggravating factor for Charge 1 because PW1 was seriously injured.  Likewise, Charge 1 is an aggravating for Charge 2 because the deceased lost his life.  Bearing in mind the totality principle, I consider a global starting point of 30 months' imprisonment for both charges appropriate and just.  With the late guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 24 months.  Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  Hence, I order 3 months in Charge 2 to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1.

24.  It is not an easy task to send someone like the defendant, who has never lost his freedom, to prison.  I have considered long and hard what the appropriate length of imprisonment should be.  I understand the traumatic effect of a prison term would have on the defendant and people who care about him.  The court, however, must send a clear message to the general public that motor vehicles can be lethal and that drivers must shoulder the responsibility for their acts on the road.

25.  In addition to imprisonment, I make a disqualification order for a period of 5 years[6] (the disqualification period will start to run from the date of sentencing[7]).  I also order the defendant to complete a driving improvement course at his own expense within the last 3 months of his disqualification period[8].  In my view, it is unnecessary to order him to re-take his driving licence test.

26.  For Charge 3, the maximum penalty is a Level 3 fine (i.e. $10,000)  and imprisonment for 6 months.  I fine him $1,000 for this charge, to be paid within 1 month.