HKSAR v. LO WAI YAN

DCCC 802/2024

[2025] HKDC 684

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 802 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  It was at about 4 am on 10 November 2023, when the defendant was driving a taxi along Argyle Street heading west. The weather was fine, the street was well lit, dry and well-maintained. The speed limit for that part of the road was at 50 kilometres per hour.

2.  When the defendant’s vehicle reached the junction of Reclamation Street, it was on the third lane from the left.  At that junction, there was a traffic-controlled crossing with road marking.  The traffic light was in his favour.  While he was crossing the junction, at the same time a pedestrian crossed the said stretch of Argyle Road.  The defendant failed to stop or swerve and knocked down the pedestrian. 

3.  From the video record of the taxi, I can see that before the collision, the pedestrian had crossed at least half of that road.  The traffic was sparse and there were many pedestrians in the vicinity.  The defendant did not stop or slow down and collided with the pedestrian. 

4.  As a result of the collision, the pedestrian suffered a multitude of injuries. 

5.  On the above facts the defendant is convicted of one count of causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving, contrary to section 36A of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374.  The maximum sentence for this kind of offence is 7 years’ imprisonment.  There is no clear sentencing guideline, as the sentence order is proportionated to the culpability of the offender. 

6.  The following facts in this case are relevant for my consideration:

- Before reaching the junction, it was a very straight stretch road with sparse traffic.

- When the pedestrian was crossing the road, he was going against the traffic light.

- By the time of the collision, the pedestrian had already passed at least half of the road.

- The defendant did not drive in excess of the speed limit as it was confirmed by forensic scientist that his lowest speed could be 53 kilometres per hour (plus or minus 5 kilometres).

7.  The pedestrian was crossing the road at a normal speed.  Under the circumstances, any prudent and competent driver would have noticed the pedestrian.  The defendant did not slow down, stop or swerve to avoid the collision.  The pedestrian suffered a multitude of injuries.  He was knocked unconscious at the scene.  There were lacerations on his scalp, his face was wounded, and his middle finger, ring finger and little finger were amputated. One of his ribs were fractured as well as his pelvis.  As a result, the pedestrian had to undergo a multitude of corrective medical  operations.  He had to stay in the hospital for three months during which his daily activities were heavily dependent on others.  As on 26 March 2025, the pedestrian was still wheelchair bound and had to stay in the old age home and was wheelchair-bound.  He was only able to perform simple tasks which the movement of his limbs had been reduced.  He was still receiving medical attention. 

8.  The prosecution contended and the defendant admitted that the defendant’s view at the time was unobstructed and he had failed to keep a proper lookout of the road resulting in the collision.  At the time, the defendant was driving in accordance with the direction of the traffic light, but it is still a duty of the vehicle driver to watch out for the conditions of the road while expecting pedestrians not complying with the traffic light. 

9.  I do accept that the defendant probably suffered from a momentary loss of concentration, however, it is no excuse and it is no consolation to the pedestrian who suffered serious injuries.  My attention was drawn to HKSAR v Lui Chung Tak, CACC 221/2012, where the driver in question had an accident at a pedestrian crossing and was driving against a traffic light.  At the trial court, he was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving. 

10.  In this particular case, the defendant did comply with the traffic light.  Having taken into account of the result of the injuries suffered by the victim, the road condition at the time, the time of the accident, I would consider it appropriate to adopt a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment. 

11.  The defendant himself suffered a number of medical issues: including diabetes, kidney disease and prostate cancer, and had to follow a strict diet.  I have also considered the letters written by the defendant himself, his wife and his daughter. I have no doubt that he has been a good provider for the family. 

12.  He had a previous conviction of dangerous driving in 2017 for which he was fined and disqualified for 12 months.  I have not been given the particulars of this conviction but from the fact that the defendant was merely fined would mean that it was a minor transgression.  I do not consider this conviction a relevant factor when considering my sentence. 

13.  As for his background and his otherwise good character, I do not think that there are valid mitigating factors for me to reduce the sentence.  The defendant was in charge of a very powerful machine on the road.  Along with this privilege, he has a proportionate duty to ensure that he would use due care and diligence on the road.  This he had failed to do. 

14.  In my view, the sentence order must not only reflect his culpability but also as to serve as a warning to other users of the road.  Therefore, I consider that there are no valid mitigating factors apart from his plea of guilty.  Therefore, the 18 months’ imprisonment is now reduced to 12 months. In addition, he has to be disqualified for 5 years.