HKSAR v. NGAI SING KEUNG

DCCC 1138/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.1138 OF 2011

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

Reasons for Sentence

1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a total of 12 charges. Charges 1-5 arose out of an incident which took place on 9^th July 2011 (“the July incident”), charges 6-12 of an incident on 10^th August 2011 (“the August incident”).

2. Each incident involved the defendant driving a vehicle. At the time of both the incidents, the defendant was disqualified from driving as a result of being sentenced for dangerous driving on 16^th December 2010 for 12 months. (charge 1 and 10: driving whilst disqualified).

The July incident

3. The defendant was caught speeding by the Police’s speed detection radar at about 12:05am on 9^th July 2011 driving PX 1364 at 144 km/h, 44 km/h over the speed limit (charge 3: speeding).

4. 25 minutes later at around 12:30am, the defendant, while driving in the wrong lane against traffic along Ching Hiu Road collided with a taxi KH 1025. The defendant’s vehicle bounced towards a road curb and crashed into a sign post before it stopped (charge 4: dangerous driving).

5. After the collision, the defendant tore off the licence plates of his vehicle and fled on foot, leaving his vehicle at the scene.

6. At about 1:10am, while a taxi (HT315) was stopped in front of a traffic light on Pak Wo Road, the defendant walked up from behind and tried to open the nearside passenger door but was not able to do so because it was locked. The defendant kicked on the nearside passenger door causing it to be dented and then fled, with the taxi driver chasing behind. The defendant was intercepted by patrolling Police in the vicinity and arrested for the offence of criminal damage (charge 5: criminal damage).

7. Upon search, the licence plates that the defendant had tore off from his vehicle earlier were found in the bag that he was carrying.

8. Since the defendant drove the vehicle whilst disqualified, the insurance company confirmed that the 3^rd party insurance would not be valid if the driver is disqualified from holding a driving licence at the time of driving (charge 2: driving without 3^rd party insurance).

9. The defendant was eventually arrested for the various offences and was granted bail.

The August incident

10. About 1 month later on 10^th August 2011, whilst on Police bail, the defendant committed the following offences.

11. At around 5:30pm on that day, the defendant was spotted talking on a mobile phone whilst driving a vehicle (PW9118) by a WPC riding a Police motorcycle. The officer signaled the defendant to stop, which he did eventually in front of a red traffic light. The officer parked her motorcycle in front of the defendant’s vehicle and went to the defendant, asking him to switch off the engine. The defendant replied that his car did not have an ignition key and then drove away. The right side mirror of the defendant’s car hit the officer’s waist when he drove away (charge 6: obstructing a Police officer).

12. The officer immediately gave chase. The defendant meanwhile drove along various roads in the area. The officer lost sight of the defendant’s vehicle near Melody Garden, Lung Mun Road at around 6pm.

13. In the course of the chase which lasted 30 minutes, the defendant drove at a speed of over 100km/h, disobeying every traffic light. The other vehicles on the road had to stop or evade the defendant’s vehicle (charge 7: dangerous driving)

14. About 30 minutes after the WPC lost sight of the defendant’s vehicle, another team of Police officers spotted the car on Tuen Mun Road (Yuen Long Bound). Police vehicle AM8960 immediately gave chase with its sirens on.

15. In the course of the pursuit, the defendant’s vehicle crossed double white lines a lot of times, forcing other vehicles to brake or swerve abruptly to evade it. Upon reaching the junction of the road with Tsing Tin Road, the defendant suddenly turned left and cut into the opposite lane of Tsing Tin Road at high speed.

16. ASGT 45190 joined the pursuit on his motorcycle AM7342. The defendant kept driving on the wrong lane of Tsing Tin Road at high speed. The other vehicles in the lane had to brake or swerve quickly in order to avoid colliding with the defendant.

17. The defendant then took a left turn into Ming Kum Road while ASGT 45190 and AM 8960 both continued to follow it. Upon reaching the junction of Shek Pai Tau and Tsun Wen Road, the defendant drove through a small gap between a bus and a mini bus, colliding with the mini bus causing its bumper to come off.

18. The defendant then turned left into Kin Fung Circuit, whereupon a lorry blocked off AM 8960. ASGT 45190 managed to carry on with the pursuit on his motorcycle. The defendant drove to the junction of Tsuen Wen Road and Lin Fung Circuit where vehicles were stopped in front of a set of red traffic lights. The defendant suddenly drove onto the pavement to avoid the traffic. 2 to 3 pedestrians on the pavement had to run for their lives.

19. ASGT 45190 continued to give chase. Upon arriving at Ming Kum Road, when the officer was just 2 to 3 vehicles’ distance behind the defendant’s vehicle which was going at about 80km/h, the defendant braked abruptly, causing the officer to have to swerve to avoid a collision. He was however unsuccessful since the defendant also turned right at the same time. The defendant’s vehicle collided with the officer’s motorcycle causing the officer to lose his balance and fell off. The officer hit the ramp and kerb and lost consciousness immediately (charge 8: causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving).

20. Meanwhile, 2 other Police vehicles continued the chase. Seeing this, the defendant made a U-turn and drove north along Ming Kum Road.

21. When the defendant got to the junction of Ming Kum Road and Shek Pai Tau Road where 3 vehicles and 2 vehicles were stopped in the first and second lane respectively waiting in front of the traffic lights, the defendant did not stop and drove through the gap between the lanes and forcefully bumped and caused damages to 4 vehicles. The driver of one of the vehicles was slightly injured.

22. The defendant continued to drive his vehicle at a speed of around 80 to 90 km/h, weaving between lanes, ignoring traffic lights and driving on the wrong lane.

23. The defendant drove into the carpark of Leung King Estate, crashing its plastic bollards in the process. The defendant went up 2 levels in the carpark then exited the carpark and drove back along Tin King Road at a speed of over 100 km/h. The defendant continued to overtake other vehicles and forced his way through light controlled junction of a road next to Leung King Estate.

24. Before turning into Ming Kum Road, the defendant accelerated and drove along Ming Kum Road till he reached the junction of Tsun Wen Road when he made a U-turn around the central divider. The defendant continued along Ming Kum Road at a speed over 120 km/h.

25. Upon reaching the junction with Tsing Tin Road, the defendant did another U-turn to proceed northbound along Ming Kum Road.

26. At the junction of Ming Kum Road next to Po Tin Estate, the defendant forced through another gap between a bus and the central divider, ripping off the nearside mirror of the defendant’s vehicle.

27. Police officers continued to follow the defendant who drove the car to the hill of Kwong Shan Chuen. The Police officers were not able to keep up on the rough terrain and by the time they got to a carpark there, the defendant’s vehicle had crashed into an empty office container and the defendant had left (charge 9: dangerous driving).

28. Inside the abandoned vehicle, an electronic scale with white powder was found in the compartment behind the gear stick. Government chemist later confirmed traces of powder containing cocaine was found on it (charge 12: possession of dangerous drugs).

29. The defendant was arrested the following day when he was about to leave Hong Kong at Lok Ma Chau railway station.

30. Since the defendant drove the vehicle whilst disqualified, the insurance company confirmed that the 3^rd party insurance would not be valid if the driver is disqualified from holding a driving licence at the time of driving (charge 11: driving without 3^rd party insurance).

The officers’ injuries

31. The WPC whose waist was hit by the door mirror of the defendant’s vehicle in charge 6 suffered minor injuries, she was discharged from hospital on the same day.

32. As for ASGT 45190, the officer who fell unconscious, he suffered head injuries, as well as fracture of 3 of his ribs. He was hospitalized until 18^th August 2011 and was granted sick leave until 15^th September 2011. His condition was not yet stable on 29^th August 2011 for assessment of permanent disability.

Previous convictions

33. The defendant has 10 previous convictions. Of those, 6 were for possession of dangerous drugs and one for dangerous driving in 2010, for which the defendant was disqualified from driving for 12 months.

Mitigation

34. A background report was prepared on the defendant. Suffice it to say that there is nothing remarkable in the report that would stand out as mitigating factors.

35. Mr. Suen for the defendant rightly pointed out that the only mitigating factor in this case is the defendant’s timely plea of guilty. Mr. Suen wished for the court to take into consideration the principle of totality when sentencing the defendant.

Sentencing Cases

36. Ms. Sabrina See for the prosecution referred me to the following cases.

The Secretary for Justice v Ko Wai Kit, Paul, CAAR 12/2001

37. The respondent, aged 22, was sentenced after trial to 12 months’ imprisonment for one charge of dangerous driving and 1 weeks’ imprisonment for resisting Police officers. The Secretary for Justice applied to review the sentence. The respondent’s driving was described by the Court as ‘a shocking case of dangerous driving…that…clearly falls within that band that can be called the worst of its type.’ The Court described the course of the driving.

“6. A closer account reveals that after the respondent drove off from Jordan Valley Road, he steered his van the wrong way against traffic on a one way road, and failed then to stop at red traffic signals. He was pursued. At the junction of On Wah Street and Chun Wah Road, the van struck a petrol tanker. But the respondent drove on. He struck two more private cars on Princess Edward Road East while passing through a gap between them. Not surprisingly, both vehicles were damaged.

7. A Police Emergency Unit vehicle, car no. 52, tried to block the traffic on Price Edward Road East, but it, too, was hit by the van, and was as a result rammed into the concrete barrier of a flyover. The driver of car no. 52, a police officer, was injured and the vehicle damaged. Alerted to the fact that the respondent's van was approaching Prince Edward Road West, another police officer stopped the traffic near the junction of Prince Edward Road West and La Salle Road. The respondent managed to evade the block by driving through a gap but not before causing the officer to fear that he was to be run down by the respondent, so much so that he drew his revolver and fired at the van.

8. On the respondent went, driving as dangerously as before. The van turned left from Prince Edward Road to Waterloo Road, heading towards Princess Margaret Road. When it reached Chatham Road near Austin Road, he drove the van across the hard shoulder to the opposite lane and then travelled against the flow of oncoming traffic. He then turned right into Austin Road, heading towards Canton Road. When the van reached Kimberley Road in Tsimshatsui, it collided with a taxi and three private vehicles, causing injuries to one driver and to a passenger. The van then reversed and damaged a lorry and three police motorcycles. The journey was finally at its end.”

38. One of the grounds of mitigation put forward was that the respondent drove as he did because he was driving under the influence of ‘ice’. The Court of Appeal considered that it was not a mitigating factor but an aggravating one.

39. The Court considered that the manner of the respondent’s driving called for a 3 year starting point. They allowed the Application for Review and set aside the sentences imposed by the judge, substituting for the dangerous driving charge a sentence of two years' imprisonment and a sentence for the resisting Police officer charge of 12 months' imprisonment to run consecutively, resulting in a total of three years' imprisonment. The Court also substituted the original period of disqualification of 2 years with one of 5 years, on the ground that the respondent ‘has demonstrably shown himself to be a menace to pedestrians, and to the driving public and their passengers.’

40. The Court of Appeal further opined that in cases such as that one, the maximum sentence was inadequate to reflect the severity of the crime and wondered whether the legislature had in mind cases such as theirs.

HKSAR v Tang Chen Ming, CACC 227/2002

41. The appellant borrowed a car and had been "joyriding" with a number of his friends for some 2 hours when he collided with a taxi in front in Mongkok. The appellant reversed his vehicle after this collision at high speed and into pedestrians on the pavement, seriously injuring one. He then drove away from this second collision, on the way striking the nearside rear corner of a Police van, then collided with 2 taxis, extensively damaged one, before coming to a halt.

42. The Court of Appeal compared this to the above mentioned case of Ko Wai Kit and considered that the facts in that case to be slightly more serious. The Court nevertheless accepted the submission of Mr. John Reading SC for the respondent, who

 “maintained that the offences committed by the Applicant amounted to a scenario which came close to being the worst of its kind and, for this reason alone, fully merited a sentence which was near to the three-year maximum for dangerous driving. In particular, in the course of trying to escape from the scene after the initial collision, the Applicant had knocked down PW4 who was propelled through the air and then through a 12 mm thick plate glass shop window. This was done by the Applicant at a time when he was driving fast in reverse while not even looking to see where he was going and at a time when he was trying to get himself away from the trouble he was already in. PW4 was probably lucky to have escaped with a fractured pelvis and right ankle and a number of less serious injuries. The Applicant had also knocked down one other pedestrian who fortunately received only minor injuries. After that, the Applicant crashed into three more vehicles, all of which were stationary, before the car he was driving was rendered immobile. In the result, a total of four people were injured, and no less than four taxis, a police van and a shop were damaged. It was, as Mr. Reading aptly expressed it in his written submission, sheer luck that only one person received serious injuries.”

43. The Court found that a resulting sentence of 2 and a half year’s imprisonment in the circumstances was not inappropriate.

HKSAR v Jim Chong Shing, CACC 186/2003

44. The Police conducted an anti-illegal road racing operation at Tuen Mun Road, New Territories. A roadblock was set up at Tuen Mun Road near the Tuen Mun town centre.

45. The appellant was one of 5 private vehicles that approached the road black at high speed shortly after 3am. Upon seeing the road block, all 5 cars made U-turns and travelled against the traffic at high speed. Meanwhile, 2 Police vans had been driven in place to block off the road that the cars came from. The appellant’s vehicle was the first to arrive at the Police vans. It did not stop and collided with the vans, but managed to pass through.

46. The appellant continued to drive his car against on-coming traffic. A Police officer on motorcycle gave chase. There was one point when both the appellant and the police had stopped their respective vehicles and were side by side on the road. The Police officer ordered the driver to turn off the car’s engine. On hearing this, the appellant suddenly revered his vehicle into another road. The Police officer continued to chase after the car but failed to catch up and eventually lost sight of it. The chase lasted for more than 10 minutes. The appellant was later identified by the Police officer in an identification parade.

47. The learned trial judge adopted a 2 and a half years’ imprisonment starting point in relation to the dangerous driving charge. The Court of Appeal found this appropriate:

“27. There is no doubt that this was an appalling case of dangerous driving. In sentencing the Applicant, the Judge considered all the relevant circumstances, including the disobeying of the police's commands to stop, the driving at a high speed against the flow of on-coming traffic, the speeding at up to 80 kmh in excess of the speed limit for a period of 10 minutes and the overtaking a vehicle by crossing double white lines.

28. The Judge was aware of the Applicant's previous convictions. There are many, and in particular, they contain 2 charges of dangerous driving in 1979, 1 charge of dangerous driving in 1981, 1 charge of reckless driving in 1988, motor racing and reckless driving in 1994, speeding and dangerous driving in 2003.

29. The Judge did not equate this case with Secretary for Justice v Ko Wai-kit [2001] 3 HKLRD 751 in which, for a similar series of offences, a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment was taken. The Applicant in that case had committed his offences at a busy time of day - 5.30 p.m. and had damaged a number of other vehicles and caused injuries to a number of people. In this case the offences were committed at night when the roads were not busy and the damage was limited to 2 police vehicles. However, the potential for damage on a scale approaching that in Ko Wai Kit was there and the Applicant demonstrated exactly the same disregard for the safety of other road users and the sanctity of other peoples' property as the offender in Ko Wai Kit did. The Judge adequately reflected the factual difference between the two cases by taking a lower starting point of 2 1/2 years' imprisonment for the dangerous driving offence.” (my emphasis)

Secretary for Justice v Poon Wing Kay and another, CAAR 2/2006

48. The 2 drivers in this case each drove a public light bus. In the early hours of a day in October in 2004, the 2 of them raced against each other on King’s Road. They repeatedly ignored red traffic lights and drove straight through light controlled junctions until at one of the junctions one of the buses collided with a taxi and then with the other bus. 2 passengers on one of the buses died as a result of injuries suffered. The 2 drivers were charged with dangerous driving causing death and furious racing. The Court of Appeal, upon review, imposed concurrent sentences of 5 years’ imprisonment for the dangerous driving causing death offence and 2 years’ imprisonment for the racing offence.

Secretary for Justice v Fong Chai Man (房濟民), CAAR 6/2007

49. The respondent was sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment on a charge of dangerous driving causing death at the Eastern Magistracy. There the vehicle involved was a lorry which was driven into a relatively narrow lane. The respondent considered that he was not able to turn the vehicle around and decided to try to reverse out of the lane. He did so at around a speed of 10km/h. Unfortunately, he failed to see a man who was carrying his 11 month old daughter on the road and they were knocked down, run over and killed by the lorry. The respondent pleaded guilty and the learned trial magistrate adopted a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment for the dangerous driving causing death charge.

50. The Court of Appeal found that the failure in the respondent’s driving was a mistake of judgment, that he was culpable in not asking his passenger to get out of the lorry to keep a lookout and upheld the sentence.

HKSAR v Ho Wai Yip, CACC 445/2009

51. In this case, the appellant was the driver of a truck used in the smuggling of cigarettes. Customs officers were on duty in 2 vehicles. One of them stopped in front of the appellant to block its way while 3 customs officers walked towards the truck to intercept. The appellant suddenly reversed the truck, hit a car behind it and then sped forward, slightly colliding with the customs vehicle that was supposed to be blocking the truck’s way. The other customs officer vehicle drove directly into the path of the truck to get it to stop but it did not, resulting in a collision. Then the truck stopped and the appellant arrested.

52. 4 customs officers were injured in the incident, with one suffering relatively serious injuries, causing him to be unable to get back to work even by the time of the appeal being heard.

53. The learned trial judge convicted the appellant after trial at first instance and sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment on the charge of dangerous driving. In relation to sentence, the appellant only appealed against the sentence on the causing grievous bodily harm with intent charge and therefore the Court of Appeal did not consider the sentence on the dangerous driving charge.

Sentence

54. Of the 12 charges, the most serious ones must be charge 8 and charge 9, the causing grievous bodily harm and the dangerous driving charge right before the defendant abandoned his vehicle.

55. Just reading the summary of facts describing how the defendant had led the Police in a chase in the August incident causes one’s head to spin. The defendant’s driving should only be seen in movies and not in reality. It was fortunate that not more people were injured and that of those injured the injuries are not more serious.

56. I find that the defendant’s overall driving manner in the August incident is on a par with the driving in the above mentioned case of Ko Wai Kit, and is among the worst of its type.

57. The defendant had no regard whatsoever for the safety of other road users, of the Police officers giving chase, or of the pedestrians on the street, all he had in mind was to try to get away, and the reason why he needed to get away was because he was not supposed to be driving in the first place as he was being disqualified.

58. Furthermore, the defendant committed the offences in the August incident while he was on bail for the July incident, showing a contempt for the legal system that is most worrying. Taken with the fact that although only 24 years old, he already has 10 previous convictions with offences including robbery, conspiracy to robbery and acting as a member of triad society, and multiple drug offences, the defendant may become a real menace to society if he does not put an end to this seemingly downward spiraling madness.

Charge 1: driving whilst disqualified

59. The maximum sentence is fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for 12 months. This was the first time that the defendant had driven whilst disqualified. He was about 7 months into the disqualification period when he committed charge 1. I will order that the defendant be fined $5,000 for this offence. This fine to be paid within 1 month from his release from jail in the present case. A sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment will be imposed if the fine is not duly paid[1]. He is disqualified from driving or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months.

Charge 2: Driving without 3^rd party insurance

60. The maximum sentence is fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for 12 months. This is the first time the defendant committing this offence. I will order that the defendant be fined $5,000 for this offence. This fine to be paid within 1 month from his release from jail in the present case. A sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment will be imposed if the fine is not duly paid. He is disqualified from driving or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months.

Charge 3: Speeding

61. The maximum sentence is a fine of $4,000. The defendant was 44% over the speed limit. I will impose a fine of $2,000. This fine to be paid within 1 month from his release from jail in the present case. A sentence of 14 days’ imprisonment will be imposed if the fine is not duly paid.

Charge 4: Dangerous driving

62. The maximum sentence is a fine of $25,000 and imprisonment for 3 years. There is also a minimum disqualification period of 2 years, this being a 2^nd conviction for dangerous driving and a mandatory requirement for an order for the defendant to attend and complete a driving improvement course[2].

63. The facts of this charge are that the defendant was driving in the wrong lane against traffic along Ching Hiu Road and collided with a taxi, with the defendant’s vehicle bouncing towards a road curb and crashed into a sign post before stopping. It is not the worst type of dangerous driving and no one was injured. This is however not the first time the defendant committed this offence. The speed of the defendant’s vehicle must be considerable for it to ‘bounce’ off the taxi after the collision and then crash into a sign post before stopping.

64. I find that a term of imprisonment is necessary. I find that a proper starting point is that of 18 months’ imprisonment. The defendant is therefore sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment after discount is given for his guilty plea.

65. The defendant is disqualified from driving or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of 2 years.

66. The defendant will also have to attend and complete a driving improvement course. Since this order has been made, under s.72A(1B) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap.374, no similar order are to be made for any other offence in this same proceedings that would have required such an order to be made.

Charge 5: Criminal Damage

67. This was the first time the defendant had been convicted of criminal damage. If this offence had stood alone, it would have been dealt with in the magistracies and would probably have attracted a fine. Bearing in mind that there was only just one kick and probably out of the defendant’s frustration not to be able to open the taxi door and was committed on impulse, I will fine the defendant $3,000 for the offence. This fine is to be paid within 1 month of the defendant’s release from jail in relation to the present case and a prison term of 14 days will have to be served by the defendant should he fail to pay the fine.

68. The cost of repair for the taxi was $2,000. I will make an order for compensation against the defendant in relation to the damage done to the taxi in the sum of $2,000, to be paid forthwith.

Charge 6: Obstructing Police Officer

69. The maximum sentence for this offence is 2 years’ imprisonment.

70. The obstruction complained of is the whole series of action the defendant had taken after being intercepted by the WPC upon seeing the defendant using a mobile phone while driving. That included the defendant’s refusal to switch off his engine, driving away, the side mirror hitting the WPC and racing through the various roads with the WPC in pursuit for 30 minutes at a speed of over 100km/h.

71. Although it is the first time the defendant committed this type of offence, I find that given the manner of the obstruction, a term of imprisonment is appropriate. I will adopt a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment, discounting it to 2 months as a result of the defendant’s plea of guilty. The defendant is sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment on this charge.

Charge 7: Dangerous Driving

72. The defendant’s driving was dangerous to other road users. He drove at high speed on the road, albeit without going in the wrong direction. He did however disobeyed every traffic light which governed his lane, causing other vehicles to have to stop or maneuver to avoid his car. I find that this manner of driving calls for a term of imprisonment as punishment.

73. I will adopt a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment, discounting it to 12 months’ imprisonment upon the defendant’s guilty plea. The defendant is disqualified from driving or obtaining a driving licence for a period of 2 years.

Charge 8: Causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving

74. The maximum sentence for this offence is a find of $50,000 and imprisonment for 7 years. Given the higher maximum sentence, it must be the legislature’s view that this is a more serious offence that the offence of dangerous driving.

75. This part of the defendant’s dangerous driving happened after the WPC had lost sight of the defendant’s vehicle for 30 minutes. It involved the defendant driving across double white lines a lot of times forcing other vehicles to swerve and brake, the defendant driving against traffic in the wrong lane at high speed, hitting other vehicles while driving through gaps, driving on to the pavement where pedestrians had to run for their lives, culminating in ASGT 45190 falling off his motorcycle after running into the abruptly braking vehicle of the defendant.

76. While there is no doubt that the defendant did cause the grievous bodily harm by his dangerous driving, there is a valid point in Mr. Suen’s submission that it was not a case of the defendant aiming his car at the Police officer who was injured, which would have made the offence really serious. The injury was as a result of the defendant braking abruptly and turning. His intention at that time was apparently to avoid capture by the Police and he was doing everything he could to try to run away.

77. The injury suffered by the officer is serious with 3 fractured ribs. He was hospitalized for 8 days and sick leave granted for about 1 month. ASGT 45190 must be commended for his bravery in giving chase to this driver who was clearly going to take a lot of effort to apprehend.

78. This was not a first dangerous driving offence committed by the defendant at that time. It was a very serious case of dangerous driving overall, perhaps as bad as that in the case of Ko Wai Kit. I take note that the actual act of the defendant which resulted in the collision with the Police officer’s motorcycle was his act of braking abruptly to turn. Yet, the defendant must have been able to see the motorcycle in his rear view mirror since it was just 2 to 3 spaces behind. Obviously the defendant did not care less and decided to brake and turn abruptly, knowing that the motorcycle will not be able to stop in time.

79. I find that a term of imprisonment is appropriate given the circumstances of the offence. I will adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, discounting it to 2 years’ imprisonment upon the defendant’s guilty plea. The defendant is disqualified for 2 years.

Charge 9: Dangerous Driving

80. The defendant drove on, driving through gaps of other vehicles stopped in front of traffic lights, damaging other vehicles, weaving between lanes at speed of around 80 to 90km/h, ignoring traffic lights and driving on the wrong lane, crashed a plastic bollard to enter a carpark, exited the carpark at speed of over 100km/h, overtaking other vehicles and forcing his way through light controlled junction, driving at speed of over 120km/h, making illegal U-turns, forcing through gap between bus and central divider damaging his own car and then crashed into an empty office container and abandoning the vehicle.

81. This kind of outrageous driving is on a par with the driving in Ko Wai Kit. I will adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, discounting it to 2 years’ imprisonment for the defendant’s guilty plea. The defendant is disqualified for 2 years.

Charge 10: Driving whilst disqualified

82. By the time of the commission of this offence, the defendant was already on bail for a previous offence of driving whilst disqualified for the July incident. He chose to ignore the chance given and just carried on driving. I find that a term of imprisonment is appropriate.

83. I will adopt a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment, reducing it to 4 months’ imprisonment upon the defendant’s guilty plea. The defendant is disqualified for 12 months.

Charge 11: driving without 3^rd party insurance

84. Again, the defendant was on bail for the July incident when he had driven without 3^rd party insurance. I find that a term of imprisonment is appropriate.

85. I will adopt a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment, reducing it to 4 months’ imprisonment upon the defendant’s guilty plea. The defendant is disqualified for 12 months.

Charge 12: possession of dangerous drugs

86. This is the defendant’s 7^th conviction for possession of dangerous drugs. His last conviction was on 16^th December 2010. The defendant is a repeated offender, which is an aggravating factor.

87. I find that although there was only traces of cocaine, a term of imprisonment is called for. I will adopt a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment, discounting it to 6 months’ imprisonment upon the defendant’s guilty plea.

Totality

Imprisonment

The July incident

88. Of the 5 charges arising out of the July incident, only the dangerous driving charge (charge 4) attracted a term of imprisonment of 12 months. Given that this offence took place on a different day, with a different vehicle and in totally different circumstances than the August incident, this 12 month sentence must be served wholly consecutively to the sentences in the August incident.

The August incident

89. The total sentences imposed on the 7 charges arising out of the August incident is 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. The individual circumstances of the charges must be looked at to decide on totality.

90. The spotting of the defendant using a mobile phone while driving was the trigger of the August incident. The obstruction was closely linked to the dangerous driving in charge 7. I will order that the 2 months sentence in relation to the obstruction charge to be served wholly concurrently with the sentence in charge 7. The sentence for charges 6 and 7 is therefore 12 months’ imprisonment.

91. The causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving in charge 8 and the dangerous driving in charge 9 has some continuity. I find however that the 2 are not necessarily wholly connected. All that the defendant had to do was to stop his car and he would have stopped committing any further offences. He chose not to stop and continued to drive dangerously even after colliding with ASGT 45190’s motorcycle.

92. I find that 4 months of charge 9 should be served consecutively to the sentence in charge 8, the rest concurrently.

93. This part of the dangerous driving did not have to happen even though the defendant had driven dangerously earlier in relation to the WPC. It was 30 minutes after the WPC had lost sight of the defendant’s car that the Police re-located the defendant. As such, I find that the sentence in relation to charge 6 and 7 should be served consecutively to the sentence in charge 8 and 9.

94. The driving whilst disqualified and driving without 3^rd party insurance are all connected to the other dangerous driving charges and I order them to be served concurrently.

95. The possession of dangerous drugs sentence is an offence of a totally different nature to the rest of the offences and must be served wholly consecutively.

96. The defendant is therefore sentenced to a total of 1 year (charge 4) + 1 year (charge 6,7) + 2 years and 4 months (charge 8+9) + 6 months (charge 12) = 4 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

Disqualification

97. I find that the periods of disqualification in relation to charge 1, 2, 10 and 11 (the driving whilst disqualified and without 3^rd party insurance charges) should be served consecutively, which is a period of 4 years’ disqualification.

98. In relation to the total of 8 years of disqualification period as a result of the dangerous driving charges, I order them to run concurrently. However, I order that 2 years of that concurrent period to run consecutively to the 4 year period earlier, making a total of 6 years’ disqualification period.

99. The disqualification periods to run from the date of sentence.

100. There is of course the driving improvement course order that was made in relation to charge 4 that the defendant will have to comply with.

[1] Pursuant to s.113A(3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221

[2] s.72A(1A), Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap.374