|
DCCC 655/2024
[2025] HKDC 605
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 655 OF 2024
________________________
________________________
| Present: |
Ms Yanky S Y Lam, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR |
| |
Ms Yasmine Zahir, instructed by Ivan Tang & Co, assigned by DLA, for the defendant |
| Offence: |
[1] Dangerous driving（危險駕駛） |
| |
[2] Possession of dutiable goods（管有應課稅貨品） |
________________________
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
________________________
1. The defendant Chan On Sang is convicted, on his own plea and admission of facts, of one count of “dangerous driving”, contrary to section 37 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374, and one count of “possession of dutiable goods”, contrary to sections 17(6) and 46(3) of the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance, Cap 109.
The Facts
2. At about 7 pm on 26 August 2023, the defendant’s vehicle was stopped by the police officers at Water Street near Connaught Road West. In the course of enquiries, the defendant suddenly drove off, causing the right rear-view mirror of the car to brush against the police officer. To avoid injury, the police officer had to dodge and suffered injury to his left ankle as a result. The defendant then accelerated, jumped the red lights to drive past Connaught Road West and Water Street to head towards the West Harbour Tunnel. The police officers boarded their vehicle, turned on its siren and gave chase.
3. Inside the tunnel, the defendant crossed double white line multiple times and cut into lanes of other vehicles. He also drove at a high speed of up to 140 kilometres per hour where the legal limit was 80 kilometres.
4. After coming out of the tunnel, the defendant drove along Yau Ma Tei Interchange and West Kowloon Highway Northbound at a speed of 190 kilometres per hour where the speed limit was 100 kilometres.
5. The defendant proceeded to drive along Tsing Sha Highway Westbound at a speed of 180 kilometres per hour where the speed limit was 80 kilometres. He then crossed double white lines and drove on Container Port Road South, made a U-turn at the roundabout at Container Terminal 8, passed the roundabout at Container Terminal 7, then drove north on Container Port Road South against the correct traffic direction and in violation of an No Entry sign, at a speed reaching 100 kilometres per hour. There the speed limit was 70 kilometres.
6. After passing the roundabout at Container Terminal 6, the defendant moved back to the northbound lane of Container Port Road South, passed the roundabout at Container Terminal 5 and Container Terminal 4, this time at a speed of about 130 kilometres.
7. At the roundabout at Container Terminal 2, the defendant made a U-turn, headed back towards Container Terminal 3. Finally, he stopped at Container Port Road South, alighted the vehicle and fled.
8. At about 1917 hour the defendant was intercepted by police officers at Kwai Chung Road. The pursuit lasted for about seven minutes over a distance of 13 kilometres.
9. By ignoring the police order and driving off, causing injury to the police officer; jumping the red lights; and having no regard for the safety of other road users by driving at an excessive speed, the defendant had driven dangerously. In the process he also crossed double white lines and cut into the lanes of other vehicles multiple times and drove in the wrong direction and in violation of the road sign of no entry.
10. Subsequently the police found in the defendant’s vehicle four carton boxes containing 26,560 cigarettes (in 2,648 packets) with no health warnings on the packets. He was therefore charged with an additional count of possession of dutiable connedile.
Sentencing Discussions
11. The maximum sentence for dangerous driving is 3 years’ imprisonment. There are no clear sentencing guidelines. The law had been amended in 2010, the legislators, obviously considering the offence of dangerous driving a very serious offence, increased the maximum sentence to the offence. As pointed out by the editors of Cross and Cheung’s Sentencing in Hong Kong, (at page 912), substantial terms of imprisonment are not uncommon in more serious cases. The relevant considerators for sentencing are the culpability of the drives and the consequences of driving.
12. The chase lasted seven minutes, during which the defendant drove in excess of the legal limits, ignoring the police in pursuit. In addition, when the police stopped the defendant and was carrying out inquiries, the defendant, in blatant disregard for the safety of the others, suddenly drove off, causing police injures to his ankle. The way the defendant drove during the chase also showed blatant disregard for the safety of other users of the road while disregarding the traffic directions and road signs.
13. The facts are serious; the defendant having shown blatant disregard for the directions of the law enforcement officers, the rules of the road, the traffic signs and the legal limits imposed on various places during the chase. The chase lasted for seven minutes and over a distance of 13 kilometres. A substantial sentence order is warranted in these circumstances.
14. Having regard to overall situation, I adopt 27 months as a starting point for the first offence. In addition, the defendant is to be disqualified for 3 years, counting with effect from the date he is released from prison.
15. For the offence of dutiable goods again, there is no clear sentencing guideline, it should be dependent on the quantity of the cigarettes in question. As the defendant has already been sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment for the first court, I will adopt 6 months’ imprisonment for the 2nd count.
16. Since they are separate offences, I order them to run consecutively, making a total of 33 months.
Other Considerations
17. The defendant is 26 years old, Secondary school educated. He has a construction worker, making about $15,000 a month. He lives with his parents. His mother is working in a restaurant, his father, for health reasons has to stay at home.
18. The defendant has a number of previous convictions, most of which drug-related. From 2024, he was found guilty of a number of road traffic ordinance-related offences, and had been fined, disqualified, and sentenced to a short-term imprisonment. In 2023 he had three fixed penalty convictions, all related to manner of driving.
19. On the date of the offence for the present case, he was a recidivist in driving offences and cannot expect the court’s indulgence for additional leniency.
20. From his background, his letter for leniency letter of mitigation and submissions by counsel, I do not find any mitigating factor in his favour.
21. The only valid mitigation is his plea of guilty. In accordance to the direction of the High Court, I order the sentence order he reduced to 22 months. He is also disqualified for 3 years. The defendant is hereby reminded that he has to arrange to attend a mandatory drive improvement course after his release. It is his duty to arrange for attending the drive improvement course, if he fails to do that, he may be charged with another offence.
|