HKSAR v. CHAN CHE MAN

DCCC868/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 868 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  This defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving, contrary to section 36A of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap.374.

2.  This accident happened on 10 March this year on the Hiram’s Highway in Sai Kung.  In the afternoon of the 10th, at about 3 pm, the defendant was driving a public light bus Sai Kung-bound. After driving past Pak Sa Wan and just outside an estate called the Giverny, there was a cement truck driving in front of the defendant’s PLB.  Just outside the Giverny, there is a lay‑by to the left, and the facts are this cement truck went to move into this lay‑by to its left.  It moved into the lay‑by either to stop or to let other vehicles pass when the defendant overtook it.  The defendant was impatient and did not wait for this cement truck to move out of the lane completely.  The defendant overtook over double white lines and hit another public light bus almost head-on.  This manner of driving is without a doubt dangerous.

3.  The prosecution’s photographs show very clearly where the defendant moved over double white lines and how he hit the other public light bus.  The other PLB did brake but there was no way it could avoid the defendant’s vehicle.  As a result of this almost head-on collision, a lot of injuries were suffered by both drivers and many passengers of both vehicles.

4.  The prosecution have produced an annex A to the Summary of Facts which lists the injuries of those victims named in the particulars of the offence.  Without referring to them all, they refer to serious injuries such as broken bones, fractures, victims requiring surgery and follow-up treatment. 

5.  Today, the prosecution has provided the court with an updated annex of those injured and how they are still now some months later affected by those injuries. 

6.  During mitigation, the defendant did offer an explanation as to how he crossed double white lines.  That made the plea equivocal.  However, after further instructions, that explanation was withdrawn.

7.  The defendant is not a man of clear record.  He has many previous criminal convictions but none relate to careless driving or dangerous driving.  His last criminal conviction was in the year 2002, 10 years ago.  His traffic record consists of three speeding tickets, which is not bad considering the defendant is a professional driver and has been for many years.

8.  The defendant is now 50 years old.  I have been told in mitigation that he is married for a second time and his second wife lives in China.  She is here in court today to support him.  The defendant does have in Hong Kong a 13-year-old son from his first marriage, living with him and his mother in Kwun Tong.  The defendant, despite not being a highly educated man, has managed to support his family as a professional driver for many years.

9.  I have received letters of mitigation today from the defendant, his son and a preacher.  I have read all those letters.  I have also received medical reports relating to his own injuries and the treatment given subsequently and been informed of other health issues he suffers from, unrelated to this accident.

10.  This offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 7 years and disqualification of not less than 2 years.  Road accidents can cause terrible suffering to all those involved.  Vehicles are potentially killing machines, especially large vehicles such as public light buses.  As a professional driver, the defendant should have been well aware of that, and any driver’s onus of care on the road is very high.

11.  Here, the defendant’s impatience has caused himself and many others pain and suffering.  Some are still suffering to date and perhaps for a long time to come.  Injuries sustained are relevant as are the number of persons injured in this accident.  The higher courts have said time and time again a deterrent sentence is required where the driving manner is so below standard, where it is obvious to everyone the driving manner was dangerous.  Therefore, the culpability of the defendant is a very relevant factor.

12.  In this case, the defendant consciously disregarded double white lines.  The defendant’s remorse is obvious but it carries little weight as anyone would feel sorry for causing such pain and suffering when it was not intended.

13.  Accordingly, I have considered the defendant’s plea today, the facts of the case, defendant’s driving manner, the number of victims and the injuries suffered, the defendant’s mitigation put forward and previous good driving record as a professional driver. 

14.  I find a starting point of 2 years and 6 months appropriate.  The defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third for his plea today.  The defendant is sentenced for this offence to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.

15.  There will be a disqualification.  That is mandatory.  Defendant is disqualified from driving any class of vehicle for a period of 2 years from today.  Is there a driving licence?  It will be handed in today.

16.  The defendant is required by law to apply for and complete a driving-improvement course.  The course must be attended in the last three months of this disqualification period.  Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT: Understand.

17.  I have to explain to you that if you do not take the driving-improvement course and complete it, it will affect your licence being returned to you as well as possibly you may face another offence.

DEFENDANT: Understand.