HKSAR v.CHAN CHI MAN

DCCC 965/2017

[2018] HKDC 792

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 965 OF 2017

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.  The defendant Mr Chan pleaded guilty today to a total of three charges, the most serious being the second charge on the indictment of dangerous driving, then Charge 3 is a charge of driving while disqualified, and then Charge 4 follows consequent on Charge 3: as a result of being disqualified, he was clearly driving at the time without third party insurance.

2.  The facts have been agreed.

3.  The offences dated back to 27 April 2015 and the defendant at the time was driving a taxi along the Tsing Kwai Highway at Kwai Chung in the New Territories.  It was about 11 am in the morning.  The day was fine.  Conditions were dry.  Traffic was moderate.

4.  At the time, the defendant was observed in a traffic control operation by way of a laser gun and a motorcycle policeman went off to stop the defendant’s taxi.  The defendant complied with the request by a police motorcyclist to drive his car to the side of the road and did so.

5.  However, after parking his car at the side of the road, the defendant decided to start off his taxi again and then, in summary, he tried to evade and escape the police from then on, no doubt because of the fact that he was disqualified at the time he was driving.  The police officer who had stopped the taxi got back on his motorcycle and gave chase to the defendant’s taxi.

6.  In fact, the course of this chase and the defendant’s driving can be clearly seen from the CCTV camera of his own taxi, which was produced as an exhibit and shown to me.  A description of that driving can be seen in the following paragraphs from 5 onwards in the summary of facts.

7.  The defendant, if I can put this in a summary, was seen to accelerate to a very high speed, one that was totally inappropriate for the road conditions, and then weaved in and out of traffic in an attempt to evade the pursuit of the police motorcyclist.  At all times, the speed limit for traffic was 80 kilometres per hour and the conditions were motorway-type conditions.

8.  Eventually, after weaving in and out of traffic on that motorway, the defendant diverted into another road and appeared to increase his speed again, continuing along that carriageway at a high speed.

9.  Further along the carriageway there was a traffic light and a number of vehicles were waiting at the traffic light.  The defendant’s speed became so fast that, on seeing that traffic, he was unable to brake in time to avoid crashing into it and the defendant went between the lanes of traffic at a high speed, driving between them and damaging his own and a number of vehicles in attempting to bring his vehicle to a halt.

10.  In all, there were eight vehicles that were damaged and they are set out in paragraph 6 of the brief facts:  private cars, taxis and light goods vehicles and one KMB public bus.

11.  Not only that, but a number of people were injured as a result of the collision.  At all the time the defendant was trying to make his escape from the police, PW7 was a passenger in his taxi and she suffered various injuries:  abrasions, neck pain, tenderness, had to be granted sick leave for four days. 

12.  Drivers in the collision near the traffic light suffered injuries such as PW9, the driver of the second vehicle:  tenderness over the right side of his neck, had to be granted seven days’ sick leave.  A Miss Chow was a passenger of the third vehicle; got a neck sprain and granted one day’s sick leave.  A Miss Tsang, a passenger of the eighth vehicle in the collision, suffering neck sprain and back tenderness.

13.  Fortunately - very fortunately - for the defendant, there was no permanent injury on any of these people who were injured in this collision.

14.  As far as the damage to vehicles is concerned, it is extensive.  The taxi can be seen to be smashed in at the front.  Repair cost some $150,000.  Total of eight further vehicles damaged with costs of repair ranging between $5,000 and $76,000.

15.  We know that at the time of the incident the defendant was not covered by third party insurance and that he was disqualified by reason of Driving-Offence Points Ordinance.

16.  That is a summary of the facts the defendant has admitted to.

17.  He is a man of clear record.  He has made his living as a taxi driver since 2007.  He is in a relationship with a lady.  They have two sons and another child has been born more recently to him.

18.  As far as his driving record is concerned, there are a number of convictions, fixed penalty convictions, for various offences such as careless driving, driving in excess of the speed limit, and failing to display his taxi driver identity plate.

19.  Of course, people who drive professionally do tend to receive more fixed penalty tickets than people who do not, but the defendant still has a considerable number and clearly has difficulty in keeping his driving within lawful limits.  The defendant has a number of convictions for careless driving and obviously a number of speeding convictions.  He has attended driving improvement courses in the past.

20.  As far as this offence is concerned, what happened here is clearly the defendant made a very foolish decision to try and escape from the police.  It was a hopeless course of action.  He was always going to be caught for his offence of driving whilst disqualified, and it was reckless in the extreme.

21.  A question of how to approach sentence in this matter.  The defendant has pleaded guilty.  He has admitted the facts.

22.  There are a number of mitigating letters from members of his family, from himself and his son.  Clearly, the defendant is well thought of in his family.  He has no criminal record and no doubt a hardworking and respected man aside from this incident.

23.  I have been referred to sentencing in other cases, but, of course each of these cases largely turns on its own facts.

24.  Dangerous driving can be a serious matter.  The defendant is fortunate here in that nobody received any substantial injury or permanent injury, and the damage that was incurred in this incident was largely material damage to the vehicles.

25.  His counsel points out that the nature of the defendant’s dangerous driving did not involve driving through red lights, driving the wrong way on a carriageway, or that kind of driving.

26.  However, as I say, each case must be looked at in the light of its own events, and the defendant’s driving in this case appears to me to be reckless in the extreme, especially after he decided to accelerate away from this police officer. 

27.  Particularly his weaving through traffic obviously created great risks for other drivers, but it is clear that towards the end of this exercise in folly the defendant’s speed was of such a nature that he was unable to bring the car to a halt and, in doing so, he risked his own life, the life of his own passenger, and the lives of the people at that traffic light.  It was like something out of a car chase in a movie and, in my view, puts itself into one of the worst categories of dangerous driving to appear before the courts.

28.  Now, as far as the offences I have to sentence for are considered, I have already identified the second charge as being the most serious.  There is a compulsory disqualification for driving and, on indictment, the maximum sentence for this offence is 3 years’ imprisonment and one could say that, looking at an offence of this nature, which, in my view falls into one of the most serious forms of dangerous driving, the starting point for sentence for a person of previous clear record would range between 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment.

29.  Considering all the matters put before me in mitigation, I have decided that the starting point for sentence in respect of this matter should be one of 30 months’ imprisonment.  Defendant has pleaded guilty.  He will get a one-third discount, so the sentence on the second charge will be one of 20 months’ imprisonment.

30.  There must be a disqualification for driving in such a serious matter.  I will order the defendant be disqualified from driving for 4 years.  He will also have to take and complete a driving improvement course at his own expense within the last three months at that period of disqualification.

31.  On the third offence, there is again a sentence of imprisonment of up to 12 months.  What I shall do is take a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment, reduce that to 2 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.  There is no part of disqualifying in that charge, so I do not do so.

32.  On the fourth offence, which is using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, again imprisonment sentence is an option here.  I shall take a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment, reduce that to 4 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.  There is also a mandatory disqualification.  I shall adopt a figure of 18 months’ disqualification for that.

33.  I am going to order that all sentences of imprisonment run concurrent.  An overall total of 20 months’ imprisonment is sufficient.  I am going to order that all disqualifications run concurrently as well.  That will be a total of 4 years’ disqualification for this matter. There are no special reasons for not disqualifying in this case. 

34.  I have already indicated the defendant must take and complete a driving improvement course within the last three months of his period of disqualification, if he wishes to retain his licence.