HKSAR v. CHOW WAI MAN

DCCC 668/2024

[2025] HKDC 1859

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 668 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  At around 9pm on 7 August 2023, the defendant was driving a taxi along the second lane of Ma Tau Wai Road towards Lok Shan Road approaching a traffic light controlled junction. The speed limit for that sketch of road was 50 kilometers per hour. The traffic light was in his favour, so he did not stop it. On the road, there was a yellow box marking. On the nearside of the road, a lay-by with bus stops.

2.  While he was crossing that junction, a Madam Chan suddenly dashed across the road from right to left.  The defendant tried to brake and swerved to the left, but was not able to avoid colliding with her.

3.  As a result of the collision, the victim suffered pelvic injury and extensive brain damage.  Her condition deteriorated and was certified dead on 9 August at about 3 am. 

4.  Further investigation revealed that at the time the defendant’s speed ranged from 69 to 72 kilometres (plus or minus 7 kilometres)  per hour.  Therefore, he in excess of the legal speed of 50 kilometers per hour. 

5.  Having viewed the camera set inside the defendant’s vehicle, I noticed that there was not little traffic. There were not that many pedestrians.  The junction a light controlled junction, with a bus stop nearby.

6.  The driver of the vehicle had the absolute duty to ensure that there was no accident.  However as a prudent and reasonable driver who is competent in his job, he should have been be on the alert that there are pedestrians who would not comply with the traffic signs and the traffic lights. 

7.  The duty is slightly higher on the driver because he was in charge of a very powerful piece of instrument which could cause serious injuries to life and property. 

8.  In this case, the victim was not blameless.  She should not be running across the road against the traffic light. The defendant did try to avoid collision by swerving and braking.  Yet, the hard evidence was that at the time the defendant was travelling above the legal limit.  It was also estimated that had the defendant complied with the speed limit, he would be able to stop the vehicle in time and avoid collision. 

9.  I ruled that the defendant’s manner of driving was way below that of a reasonable and competent driver, and any competent driver in his position would have said that it was a dangerous way of driving.  He was convicted of Dangerous Driving causing Death upon his plea and admission of the above facts.

10.  There is no clear authority as to the proper sentence for offences of this kind, but as quite rightly pointed out by the defence counsel, culpability is the dominant factor.  Between careless driving and dangerous driving, there is basically no difference except by matter of degree. 

11.  The usual sentence is an immediate custodial sentence.  There may be exceptional cases but in this case I do not see any. 

12.  I accept that in this case, the victim was try running across the road against a traffic light and the defendant did take measures to stop and swerve to avoid collision.  And I do agree that the defence contention that it was an error of judgment.  Therefore, I found the defendant’s culpability was on the low side of a dangerous driving causing death offence. 

13.  It is, of course, always a tragedy that someone died as a result and it should be avoided as all times and the defendant did drive in an excessive speed.

14.  In this case, the victim did run out of the road and the circumstances were such that the defendant had failed to keep a proper lookout.  He had the duty to watch out for those who did not comply with the traffic lights and the conditions of the road, but his duty was not to guarantee that nothing whatsoever untoward would happen. 

15.  There was no evidence suggesting intoxication or substance abuse.  No other persons put at risk.  The defendant’s manner of driving, apart from the excessive speed, does not qualify to be aggressive or reckless driving. 

16.  The defendant had a long string of previous convictions, including five careless driving, one dangerous driving. I do note that the defendant was a professional driver.  As a professional driver, being in breach of minor traffic offences probably was part of the professional hazard. 

17.  He cannot claim that he had a clear record so that the court should exercise extra clemency for him, but I do not think that they are sufficient for me to enhance the sentence as such.

18.  Having considered the facts as a whole, I would consider that the proper sentence should be 6 months’ imprisonment.  It is reduced down to 4 by reasons of plea of guilty. 

19.  I am required to disqualify him for driving.  In his case, with his traffic record, I would impose a 2-year disqualification. 

20.  I here of warn the defendant that at the end of this disqualification, he may be notified by the Traffic Department to undergo a driving improvement course.  I would warn the defendant that it is his duty to join and finish a driving improvement course, failing which it would be a reason for the prosecution to charge him.