HKSAR v. NG LIN SHING

DCCC240/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.240 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving causing death and convicted on careless driving after trial.

Finding

At about 6:26 am on 4^th September 2009, a fatal traffic incident took place outside No.287, Queen’s Road East, Wan Chai at the junction of Queen’s Road East and Stubbs Road. The accident involved one light goods vehicle driven by the defendant and a pedestrian aged 69.

The accident took place on a pedestrian crossing at the eastbound of the junction which is subject to traffic light control. The deceased was crossing the road against the pedestrian red light. The speed limit of the Road was 50km/hour.

Before the set of traffic light, the traffic of the road was made up of four lanes. There was a right bend before the set of traffic light, and the defendant was driving on the second lane from the left which is the third land from the pavement on the left over the pedestrian crossing.

The line of vision of the defendant was affected by the bend and the third and fourth lane on his right, the defendant failed to drive with due care and attention in adopting an appropriate speed so as to allow a safe stopping distance which enable him to stop in time for situation in front and underestimated the stopping distance he required. I consider this to be a serious case of careless driving, a sentence of fine is not sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the case.

Mitigation

The defendant aged 35 married with a daughter aged 2, the defendant was living with his family including his grandmother and father. The defendant starts working daily from early hours earning about $10,000 per month; he is the sole breadwinner and has a heavy financial burden, particularly before his mother passed away in November 2009. The defendant has arranged substitute driver for the job orders and works as assistant.

The defendant has offered to plea for careless driving before the trial commenced, and has strong support from his family and friends. He obtained his driving licence for 14 years with one careless driving in 2000.

I noted the defendant has one conviction related to possession of dangerous drugs, of which he was put on 15-months probation for possession of dangerous drugs on 26 May 2009 and the order was completed on 25 August 2010, in order to have more information about the defendant and the suitability of a CSO in the defendant’s case I adjourned the case for urine tests and CSO report.

It appeared in the report that the defendant felt remorse and was willing to perform unpaid community service as a means of reparation. The defence submitted that the defendant is willing to undertake a CSO order with any length and condition and urged the court to adopt the recommendation of the report. With the defendant’s consent I imposed an order of 200 hours and subject to special condition.

As to disqualification, I consider that for the driving manner of a driver not susceptible to drugs in the present case, it would warrant a period under section 69 for 4 months and a re-test pursuant to section 70 of the Ordinance.

However, the report shown that the defendant took cannabis and his explanation being he was stressful. That means the defendant has access to dangerous drugs; further his explanation for taking cannabis to the interviewing officer is unacceptable. Though there was no evidence he was under influence of drugs at the material time, the present case happened during the operative period of the probation order.

As I have indicated on last occasion, driving under influence of dangerous drugs is dangerous, facts that the defendant still taking dangerous drugs would have bearing in considering the length of disqualification, as person taken drugs would not aware he is so effected and underestimates his ability to control the vehicle. For the fact that the defendant still susceptible to drugs, I disqualified the defendant pursuant to section 69 of the Ordinance for a further period of 2 months, making a total of 6 months, to enable the defendant sufficient time to get insight into the negative impact of dangerous drugs to a driver and the other road users.

Further, I make an order pursuant to section 70 of the Ordinance, that the defendant to be disqualified until he has, after the date of the present order, passed the test of competence to drive prescribed under the Ordinance.

Order

The defendant is sentenced to serve 200 hours of community service with special condition that he should abstained from dangerous drugs and subject to random urine test (explained to the defendant the 200 hours must be completed to the satisfaction of his supervising officer within 12 months from the date of the order, comply the special condition, keep good behaviour, keep contact with supervising officer within the operative period, otherwise in breach and liable for re-sentencing);

disqualified from holding or obtaining any driving licence for a period of 6 months. (defendant to surrender the driving licence and warned the defendant driving while disqualified liable for imprisonment and further disqualification and reminded driving while disqualification would in effect driving without insurance coverage, again a very serious offence);

and to be disqualified until he has, after the date of the order, passed the test of competence to drive prescribed under the Road Traffic Ordinance.