HKSAR v. LAU SIN TING

 DCCC888/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 888 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant has pleaded guilty to a count of dangerous driving causing death. And the Facts are sadly that on 29 January 2009, at sometime after 11 pm, the defendant had driven her car into a parked lorry causing the passengers in her car serious injuries and, as a result of those injuries, the two friends of the deceased died and another of the passengers in the car is now paralysed. The defendant herself had suffered also extensive injuries and is still undergoing rehabilitation.

2.  The Facts reveal that the defendant at the time had driven into the dead-end road and at that time, the accused had made a remark that she had entered that road by mistake. As the road was a dead-end road and she made a U-turn. After the U-turn, the defendant had lost control of her car and then collided with the light goods vehicle which was parked by the side of the road. The light goods vehicle was, in fact, parked outside a factory and there was a CCTV camera which had been installed outside the factory, and it could be seen from that CCTV camera that the defendant’s vehicle travelled at a high speed when it passed the entrance of the factory.

3.  The government motor vehicle examiner examined the car and also the light goods vehicle. And Dr Wong, the forensic scientist, had estimated from the markings on the road that the vehicle of the defendant was travelling at between 87.3 kilometres an hour to 106.7 whilst the speed limit on that road was only 50 kilometres per hour.

4.  The defendant was aged 19 at the time of the accident and is now aged 20. She has a clear record and she has not had any traffic violations in the past. So, wanting to know a little more about the defendant’s background and to consider really how to deal with the defendant in this case, I called for a probation officer’s background report and also a training centre and rehabilitation centre report.

5.  The defendant is found unsuitable for both training centre and rehabilitation centre because of her injuries, and the probation officer’s background report is an extremely good one. It shows the defendant, although not academically strong, was very active and was of a very outgoing personality. She was well liked by everyone who came into contact with her. She was considered to be very helpful, friendly and she appeared to be extremely respected and loved by everyone whom she came into contact with.

6.  I have also been given letters in mitigation written by her friends, and the most helpful was one written by one of the victims who was travelling in the car at the time and who suffered, fortunately, less serious injuries. And she gave an account of the defendant as someone whom she respected and liked very much and treated as one of the family and that she had been in the car driven by the defendant on many occasions prior to the accident and found that the driving of the defendant was safe.

7.  That victim’s parents also wrote a letter, also testifying to the fact, that they like the defendant very much and that they have also been taken on car rides by the defendant and they did not see that the defendant was someone who loved to speed. So, it would appear that on this occasion the defendant was acting apparently out of character.

8.  Mr Leung, in mitigation, said that the defendant was speeding because she was nervous at the time. She had made a wrong turn into this dark road and was anxious to get out of that road as quickly as possible. And that is why she had driven at a speed beyond her control. And when she made the U-turn, she lost control and the unfortunate accident happened.

9.  Whilst on occasions like this the court is moved at the time of mitigation by letters and explanations from the defendant and her family and friends, one must not forget the victims in this case and their families. For all the excuses that have been put out, it is clear that the defendant did drive with a degree of recklessness. Admittedly, she is a new driver, and I am told that she has only had six months’ driving experience. Then all the more she should have driven at a speed at which she was sure that she could control the car.

10.  It has been said time and time again that driving a car is like being in control of a deadly weapon. It can maim and kill and cause injuries in a split second. And that is the message that the courts have to send out to the society at large in a case of this nature because every year, we have young people getting their new licences to drive on the roads and they should be warned that the licence does give them a right to drive on the road but it also gives them a heavy responsibility to drive within their capabilities. And it is because of the very serious nature of traffic accidents that we have in Hong Kong that the legislature have increased the maximum penalty for this type of offence only recently.

11.  In the case of the Secretary for Justice v Lam Siu Tong, the Chief Judge of the High Court was dealing with applications to review sentencing for similar offences but, of course, the offences before the Court of Appeal on that occasion were two offences involving accidents at pedestrian crossing, which this is not. But, nevertheless, it is clear that the Court of Appeal was concerned that sentences for this type of offence should carry with it a deterrent effect. And, therefore, good character and remorse may count for very little.

12.  And the Court of Appeal had drawn particular attention to the passage given in the Secretary for Justice v Poon Wing Kay [2007] 1 HKLRD 660 where the court had said that it is important for courts to drive home the message that “there may sometimes be extremely grave consequences flowing from acts of dangerous driving and it is, therefore, necessary to have in mind a deterrent effect when sentencing in many cases involving dangerous driving. A motor vehicle, many may often forget, when not driven to requisite standards, can kill or maim. The standards required by the law for motorists found in the road traffic legislation and elsewhere are there to ensure that all who can come into contact with motor vehicles, whether fellow motorists, passengers or pedestrians, are safe and that their lives are not endangered”.

13.  The court went on to say that 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.

14.  In this case, one cannot deny the fact that the defendant’s own acts had caused these very tragic consequences. I accept fully the defendant’s remorse. I also accept fully the fact that the defendant is determined to start a new life despite her injuries and mental afflictions. It is very difficult to sentence when a defendant is so well liked in society and has made herself a contributing member of society in her young years. On the other hand, I have to balance the interests of the victims in this case.

15.  There is no doubt that a custodial sentence is necessary. I have considered that, in the circumstances of this case, a 15 to 18 months’ starting point sentence is reasonable. Because of what I have heard, particularly the fact that the defendant had acted out of character, taking all that into account, I will adopt the lower starting point of 15 months. Because the defendant has pleaded guilty, she is entitled to one-third reduction. So, the defendant will go to prison for 10 months. And she is also disqualified from driving for 2½ years.

16.  Now, what I wish to say, finally, is that the probation officer has stressed that the defendant is very remorseful about what has happened and, therefore, it has affected her mentally. All I can say is that the court accepts the defendant’s remorse and the defendant herself should, as she had said in her letter to this court, strive to better herself from now on. And it hopefully would be of help to the defendant if all the letters that have been written about her to this court can be given to the defendant so that at any time she feels hopeless, she should read what others have said about her and this may help her recovery.

17.  And by this sentence, the court also hopes to send a message out to all the young people that speeding is a dangerous conduct to indulge in on our roads.