|
DCCC 541/2018
[2019] HKDC 547
香港特別行政區
區域法院
刑事案件2018年第541號
---------------------------
---------------------------
| 出席人士： |
陳曦媛小姐，為律政署檢控官，代表香港特別行政區 |
|
藍凱欣小姐，由法律援助署委派的杜偉強律師事務所延
聘，代表被告人 |
| 控罪： |
危險駕駛引致他人身體受嚴重傷害（Causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving） |
---------------------
判刑理由書
---------------------
1. 被告被控一項「危險駕駛引致他人身體受嚴重傷害」罪，違反香港法例第374章第36A條。被告認罪而被定罪。
2. 案情指2017年12月4日上午11時28分左右，被告駕駛登記號碼TR614的公共雙層巴士（“TR614”），在香港九龍秀茂坪秀茂坪道近寶達邨以時速約30公里衝過AF2323號交通燈的紅色燈號，撞倒行人湯女士，導致她滑倒地上。
3. TR614行車紀錄儀錄得上述事情經過，而且顯示被告撞倒湯女士之前一刻曾向上望了兩次。
4. 當時是大白天，紅燈展示至少4秒後，被告才駛過去。通往交通燈的馬路是雙線直路。
5. 意外發生時，湯女士正在過馬路，行人燈號亮着綠色穏定燈光，而該組交通燈當時運作正常。
6. 湯女士左眼眶下壁和顴骨壁骨裂，左手肘鷹嘴亦骨裂。此外，左面頰擦傷、左太陽穴裂傷（1厘米）及左手肘腫脹，因痛楚而導致動作幅度受限制。
7. 意外發生時，天氣晴朗，路面乾爽，交通流量正常，該路段車速限制是每小時50公里。被告在意外後不久進行呼氣測試，並無測岀酒精含量。TR614沒有機械故障。
8. 被告於1976年12月出生，現年42歲，已婚，家有妻子及8歲兒子，他是家中經濟支柱。被告在干犯本案前，並無任何刑事或交通定罪記錄。
9. 代表被告的藍大律師陳詞說被告在案發時是新近駕駛有關的巴士路線，由於對該巴士路線不甚熟悉，故此在案發時分心望向上方的“LED”文字顯示器，因而干犯本案控罪。
10. 藍大律師亦為被告呈上多封求情信、感謝狀及獎狀，以顯示被告樂於助人，從而請法庭輕判被告。
11. 在HKSAR v Lee Yau Wing（李有榮）CACC 282/2012一案中，上訴人就相同控罪認罪而被定罪，他被判處監禁10個月，停牌兩年及在停牌令完結前的3個月內要自費完成駕駛改進課程。上訴人就判刑的上訴被上訴庭駁回。該案案情與本案接近，但嚴重性較本案略輕 ― 上訴人衝紅燈撞倒受害人時的車速只是每小時約15公里，而受害人沒有因被碰撞而跌倒，亦沒有因該次意外而導致有任何傷殘。上訴庭在該案的判案書第33至39、41、46、48及49段已詳細分析就相關控罪的判刑考慮，其中該案判案書第46、48及49段說：—
“46. What we can be sure of is that, for whatever reason, the applicant, knowing the lights were red and knowing that his vision of the pedestrian crossing was incomplete, did not bring his vehicle to a stop. This reveals a  wilful refusal to stop at the crossing and a deliberate risk-taking in allowing his vehicle to edge forward onto the crossing. Such conduct, we have no doubt, exhibits a conscious disregard for the traffic lights and for those pedestrians who might be using the crossing and brings the quality of the applicant’s dangerous driving into the serious category. But as Lam Siu Tong makes clear there is a range of seriousness to dangerous driving and we are satisfied that in the very unusual circumstances of this case the applicant’s driving misconduct was serious but it was in the middle to the lower end of the range of seriousness.
……
48. The maximum penalty for this offence is 7 years imprisonment but that is reserved for far more culpable driving than is present here. Given the seriousness of this applicant’s dangerous driving and given the need to both deter and denounce such driving a sentence of imprisonment was clearly inevitable for this applicant. The only issue is the length of that sentence. Relevant to this issue are, of course, the harm caused by the applicant’s driving, his previous driving record and his remorse. But above all, as we have emphasized, it is the culpability of the applicant’s driving that will be the main determinant of the severity of the sentence.
Conclusion
49. Here, as we have said, the applicant’s culpability lies in his wilful refusal to stop at a red light, made worse because the red light controls not just a traffic intersection but also a pedestrian crossing, and a deliberate risk-taking in allowing his motor vehicle to continue travelling forward onto the pedestrian crossing when he could not see if any pedestrian was using the crossing. For this level of culpability the District Judge was right to adopt a starting point for sentence of 15 months imprisonment.”
12. 本案案情比李有榮一案較為嚴重 ― 事發時車速為每小時約30公里，而曾女士被撞倒而導致滑倒地上，左眼眶下壁和顴骨壁骨裂，左手肘鷹嘴亦骨裂，左面頰擦傷、左太陽穴有1厘米裂傷及左手肘腫脹，因痛楚而導致動作幅度受限制，曾女士因而放了4個月病假，而且因本案導致的意外，她的左手肘需要施行手術並鑲上鏍絲，至今，曾女士仍要不時前往覆診。
13. 考慮本案案情，本席以16個月監禁為量刑基準。由於被告人在干犯本案前並無任何刑事或交通定罪記錄，再加上他的良好品格（從呈上的求情信、感謝狀及獎狀可見），本席把判刑扣減至12個月監禁。又由於他及時認罪可再得三分一的判刑折扣，令刑期減至8個月監禁。
14. 除了判處被告監禁8個月外，本席亦下令被告停牌兩年，及需要在停牌令完結前的3個月內自費參與及完成駕駛改進課程。
|