HKSAR v. Ghulam Raza

DCCC 286/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 286 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Verdict

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

1.The defendant has pleaded not guilty to Charges 1, 2 and 3 of this charge. He pleaded guilty to Charges 4, 5 and 6 on the first day of the trial.

2.Charge 1 is causing death by dangerous driving on 8 October 2014, and Charge 2 is failing to stop after an accident whereby personal injury was caused to a person. Charge 3 is failing to report an accident involving injury.  Charge 4 is a charge of using a vehicle with both side rear stop lights maintained other than in a clean and efficient condition.  They were examined and both deemed inoperable.  Charge 5 is a charge of using a vehicle with fittings - here, a reversing lamp - other than in a good and serviceable condition.  The motor vehicle examiner concluded it was inoperable.  Charge 6 is a charge of using a goods vehicle fitted with an automatic device which was not capable of giving audible and sufficient warning when it was reversing and about to reverse. That too was examined and deemed inoperable.  The motor vehicle examiner’s report is exhibited at P8.

The Background Issue

3.On 8 October 2014 at about 7.10 am, Madam Chow Moon was run over by a vehicle, and died six days later from injuries sustained.  She was 80 years old.  There was no witness to the actual accident, but the prosecution says CCTV footage sees the victim walk down a straight road and the defendant’s vehicle reverse down the same road behind her.

4.It is not in dispute the defendant’s vehicle is the only moving vehicle on the road at that time. He reverses, stops, moves forward, and stops again.  The victim is then discovered on the road with severe injuries.

5.The issue is whether the defendant knocked her over and injured her.  If he did, was his manner of driving dangerous?  There is no dispute she subsequently died from her injuries she sustained.

The Prosecution Case

6.There is no witness, as I said, to the accident, so the prosecution relies on the evidence they present adding up to the irrefutable inference the defendant drove dangerously and caused the victim’s death.

7.P13 is a sketch of the unnamed road behind the wet market of Lok Fu Estate.  It is a road that services deliveries to that wet market.  It is long and narrow, flanked by parking spaces on either side of the road for large vehicles.  It is single track, effectively.  The sketch marks the bloodstains of the victim in front of the refuse station in the middle of the road.  It also marks a distance of 30 metres leading to the bloodstain from the left of the sketch to the right.  This indicates the distance the defendant reversed his vehicle to leave the market.  The width of the road he reversed down with vehicles parked to his left and his right was 3.2 metres.  The defendant’s vehicle was 2.4 metres wide.  It was also 6.6 metres long.  None of the above is in dispute.

8.P7 is the CCTV footage that brings the sketch to life.  P7A is 18 photographs taken from P7. They are still images of the CCTV footage.  The footage is not challenged.  P7A is preceded with times and a description of the still photographs.

9.Madam Chow is seen at 7.09 am walking down the unnamed road towards the entrance or exit of that road and the refuse station.  She walks slowly, with a hunched stance. She walks down the middle of the road.  One can see trucks parked down both sides of the road, leaving it a single-track road.

10.The defendant’s vehicle can be seen at the far right of photograph 1 of P7A with its tailgate platform down.  The front of the truck is not visible in the photograph. Madam Chow can be seen in photographs 1 to 5 of P7A before she disappears from view at 7:10:33 am.  Photograph 6 shows the defendant’s vehicle start to reverse down the same road at 7:10:38 am.  He is the only vehicle moving on that road.

11.In P7 at 7:11:30 am one can clearly see the rear right side of his 8 tonne truck rise up and then down.  It then stops, moves forward, and comes to a stop again.  The prosecution says this is the precise moment he hits Madam Chow and runs her over.  It is her body that causes the rear right of his vehicle to go up and then down as seen in the CCTV footage.

12.The defence do not dispute that the up and down motion can be seen in P7.

13.P7 shows the defendant’s vehicle at 7:11:35 am moves forward and stops.  Then one sees people run in the direction of his vehicle.  He puts on his right indicator light; it can be seen flashing.  One, from the CCTV footage, cannot see the left side light.  P7 shows the defendant’s vehicle at 7:14:11 am move forward again and stop.  His right front light is flashing again.  Photograph 12 of P7A shows the vehicle moved forward again when one looks at its position compared to photograph 10.

14.P7 shows the defendant’s vehicle then leave the unnamed road at 7:16:18 am.  He reverses around the deceased lying on the road.  She becomes visible again on CCTV at 7:16:58 am in photograph 16 of P7A.  She is clearly lying on the ground.

15.The prosecution say the defendant was told to stay at the scene, but he reversed around the deceased out onto the main road and left the area.

16.P3 is four photographs taken of the deceased attended to by ambulancemen, who arrived after the defendant’s vehicle left the scene.  Photograph 1 of P3 shows the position in which Madam Chow was found by passers‑by, specifically PW3 and PW4.  The blue truck to her left can be seen in photographs of P7A, namely photographs 15 to 18.

17.PW1 was the daughter of Madam Chow who gave evidence that her mother, despite her hunched stance, was in good health.  She was 80 years old, and would go out every morning to collect paper, cans and cardboard.  She took no medication for blood pressure, glucose or cholesterol issues.  She recently had successful cataract operations on both her eyes.  She had no financial issues, health issues, or mental health issues.  She lived in Lok Fu area with her husband and her eldest son.

18.PW2 was a female security guard at the unnamed road, and controlled the barrier of that road. It was lowered between 7 am and 11 pm only.  She started work at 7 am.  She was, at the material time, in her security guard booth at the entrance or exit of this unnamed road when several delivery drivers ran up to her and told her to call the police.  She was told someone had been hit by a vehicle.  The rest of her evidence was of little use and clearly not forthcoming, for whatever reason.  She was not cross-examined.

19.PW3 was a delivery driver, and his vehicle was parked in front of the defendant’s vehicle in the last parking space on that side of the road.  His vehicle is clearly visible in P7 and P7A, photographs 1 onwards.  His truck is blue with yellow characters, and his rear open tailgate faced the open tailgate of the defendant’s vehicle. He had to raise his tailgate so that the defendant could reverse out to leave. Once the defendant reversed out, PW3 lowered his tailgate again to continue unloading his goods.  He moved goods into a building to the left of the camera frame several times, as seen on the CCTV footage.

20.PW3’s evidence was that he parked in the last parking space on the left as he drove in.  He had turned around and parked facing the exit.  He knew the defendant by sight, as well as the defendant’s vehicle, parked behind him.  He was sure, when the defendant started to reverse at 7:10:38 am, that he did not hear the audio warning sound as he should have.  There was no, as he said, “Beep beep beep” sound emitting from the defendant’s vehicle when he started to reverse.  One can see from Exhibit P7 that PW3 was very close to the defendant’s vehicle at that time. 

21.PW3 carried on working after the defendant reversed, and he let down his tailgate platform again.  He did notice not long afterwards that the defendant’s vehicle had stopped reversing and was stationary.  He did have a look to see why the defendant was unable to move.  He saw a pile of things behind the driver’s side of the defendant’s vehicle on the ground.  He did not notice what it was until the defendant moved forward towards PW3; that it was in fact a person lying on the ground behind the defendant’s vehicle.

22.On Exhibit P7 it is clear PW3 looks towards the defendant’s stationary vehicle at 7:12:50 am, but carries on working.  The defendant moves his vehicle forward again at 7:14:11 am, and at 7:15:06 am PW3 looks down the road towards the defendant’s stationary vehicle again.  This time, he stops in his tracks, leaves his trolley of boxes at 7:15:06 am, and goes to where the deceased lay behind the defendant’s vehicle.  He estimated the deceased lay about 8 feet from the rear of the defendant’s vehicle.  There was nothing on the ground around or near her.  He saw the defendant talk to another south-east Asian male nearby.  He saw PW4, a nurse, attend to the deceased, and he went back to work.  He is sure that when the defendant’s vehicle was reversing down the road towards the exit, the defendant’s vehicle was the only vehicle on the unnamed road moving.

23.As far as distances were concerned, he did clarify that the defendant’s vehicle was at first about 8 feet from the deceased when he saw the deceased.  When the defendant moved forward again, there was then about one vehicle’s length between the deceased and the defendant’s vehicle.  That is, about 20 feet.  This distance was the only question asked in cross‑examination.

24.PW4 was a nurse walking to work that morning.  She saw the deceased lying on the road.  There were two to three Chinese people stood nearby.  She also notice two south-east Asian males stood near the defendant’s vehicle.  She vaguely recognised the defendant as one of those two males.  She could not hear their conversation. She said the old lady was about 4 feet behind the rear of a vehicle, KU-1485, when she attended to her.  She made a note of this vehicle’s number plate in her mobile phone.  There is no dispute it was the vehicle licence plate of the defendant’s vehicle.  She showed all in court her record that she made, according to her Smartphone, at 7.13 am that day.

25.She said some drivers said they should move to let the ambulance come in.  She said one of the south Asian males also drove out, following the other vehicles, driving KU-1485.  She heard someone shout “Don’t leave” at this driver, but he still drove away.  She watched it leave and made a note of the number plate in her phone.  She said where he was parked in front of where the deceased lay on the ground was not going to prevent an ambulance coming in like the other two vehicles that left the area, but he nonetheless followed them out.  She was not cross‑examined.

26.PW5, SPC16393, arrived at the scene to see ambulancemen treating the deceased.  She was badly injured, particularly her legs.  He could almost see the bones of her legs. She subsequently had to have her left lower leg amputated days before she died.

27.At 8.10 am the defendant returned to the scene in KU‑1485.  He passed a breathalyser test conducted by PW5.  The defendant told PW5 that when he reversed out of the car park he saw the old lady lying on the side of the road.  He continued to reverse out, stopping only at the security guard post by the barrier to tell the security guard to call the police, and then he left.  PW5’s evidence was not challenged.

28.PW6, SPC45657, arrived at the scene after the ambulance had left with the deceased.  He saw the bloodstain on the road.  He took photograph P4 of the road, the area, and the defendant’s vehicle parked on the main road outside the unnamed road.  He took photographs of the blood on the outside of the rear right tyre as well as the swipe marks in the dust of the mudguard in front of the rear right tyre, photographs 16 and 17.  This officer measured a distance of 30 metres from the deceased to where KU-1485 began to reverse.  He also prepared P13, the sketch.

29.He also spoke to the defendant after 8.20 am, where he said, in very fluent Punti, that he reversed to leave after unloading goods.  The defendant said the deceased was already on the ground and that he had not hit her nor come in contact with her.  PW6’s evidence was not challenged.

30.PW7, PC58195, arrived after the ambulance had left and the defendant had returned to the scene.  He took more photographs of the defendant’s vehicle, Exhibit P5, 1 to 12, particularly where the Government Chemist had placed some stickers to indicate relevant evidence.  These included smudges in the dust behind the mudguard of the right rear tyre and blood on the outside of the right rear tyre, as well as blood embedded in the tread of the tyre, photographs 1 to 8. Photographs 11 to 12 of P5 show the monitor connected to the rear-view camera installed at the back of the vehicle.  The monitor is in front of the driver. In photograph 11 the monitor is off, and in photograph 12 the camera and monitor are on, and a police officer can be seen stood behind and very close to the vehicle.

31.PW7 confirmed that if the camera was on at the relevant time, the driver could see anyone directly behind the vehicle even if some distance away, and see them clearly.  This is obvious from the photograph.  PW7 also took photographs Exhibit P6, 1 to 3, the next morning at the Vehicle Detention Pound.  These photographs were of the view the driver, or the defendant sat in the driver’s seat, had when looking at the right and left side mirrors.  Anyone to the left or right rear of the vehicle could be seen even if some distance away, and seen clearly.

32.PW7 also spoke to the defendant on 15 October 2014 and issued P12, a POL571, to the defendant.  The defendant filled it in and signed it.  This POL571 confirms that the defendant was driving KU-1485 at the material time.  PW7’s evidence was not challenged.

33.Exhibit P1 is the Admitted Facts pursuant to section 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221.  What is important is the fact the defendant had to reverse 64.2 metres down the unnamed road into a main road in order to leave.  There were no speed bumps on this unnamed road.  The defendant has a clear record.  The deceased died on 13 October 2014.  The medical reports are Exhibit P9 and P10.  The autopsy report is Exhibit P11.  The deceased’s injuries were very serious, and she subsequently died as a result of her injuries.  The blood samples taken off the outside of the right rear tyre as well as from the tread of that rear tyre were examined and determined that they could have come from the deceased, or rather, the chances of the DNA not being the deceased’s is 1 to 122 quadrillion.  The defence did not try to suggest it was not the deceased’s blood on the tyre.  The defendant had no explanation as to how her blood got on and into the tread of this tyre.  The forensic reports are P15 and P16, and I repeat that the motor vehicle examiner’s report is Exhibit P8.

The Defence Case

34.The defendant elected to give evidence.  He is from Pakistan and arrived in Hong Kong in 1995, and is now aged 34.  He is a Hong Kong resident, and works as a driver. KU-1485 belongs to his cousin, but the defendant pays its insurance and treats it as his own.  He had been driving this vehicle continuously since July 2014.

35.The defendant pleaded guilty to Charges 4, 5 and 6 because he accepted the validity of P8, the MVE report.  However, on 8 October 2014, he was unaware of any of the defects of Charges 4, 5 or 6.  In fact, he clearly heard the reverse warning sound as he reversed out of the unnamed road that morning.  It must have malfunctioned after that and before it was examined by the motor vehicle examiner the next day, on 9 October.  He does not accept there was no warning noise when he reversed down the unnamed road.

36.The defendant gave evidence that he had driven to this wet market 25 to 30 times.  That morning, he unloaded all his goods, and had to reverse out of the road.  He reversed very slowly, and whilst he was reversing, he looked at both side mirrors and his camera monitor at all times.  He saw nothing behind him as he reversed.  He agrees that he stopped at 7:11:34 am and moved forward a short distance.  He did this because he felt he was not reversing straight, so had to move forward to straighten up before he began to reverse again without touching any vehicle parked to his left or right.

37.At that time he saw nothing behind him.  After he moved forward to straighten up, he saw something behind him at a distance.  He got out to check what it was, and saw the old lady lying on the ground.  He then shouted out to people to help.  At that moment, she was about 10 feet from the rear of his vehicle.

38.The defendant spoke to some Chinese people and told them to call the police, as they could speak Cantonese to the police and give clearer instructions.  At about 7:16:20 am he moved forward so vehicles could exit the road to make room for the ambulance which was on its way.  He left as well in order to make room for an ambulance. He drove to another market, but returned when he received a telephone call from the police to return to the scene.

39.In cross-examination he was asked about the defects to the rear lamp, rear stop lights and the device that emitted sounds when the vehicle reversed.  He was not aware of any of those defects that morning.  In fact, he is sure he heard the reverse warning sound that same morning.  His evidence was it is possible that it malfunctioned between that morning and the MVE examining it 24 hours later.

40.He agreed that when he reversed down the road and in the direction of the deceased walking, he was the only moving vehicle on the road.  He agrees the CCTV shows the right rear of his vehicle go up and down as if he had run over something.  He says he felt something that morning, but a little bit; he did not know what caused it.  He suggested it could have been an onion, a potato or some vegetable that he had run over.  He did agree that he immediately stopped his vehicle after it went up and down and then moved it forward, but he disagreed that he knew he had knocked over and run over the deceased with his rear right tyre.  He said he did not know how she fell over.  The defendant could not explain how her blood came to be in and on his right rear tyre, but disagreed it was because he had come in contact with her when he ran her over.

41.It was put to him the only explanation for the blood was that he had run over the deceased, to which he answered, “I don’t know if -- what proof do you have I ran over her?” He disagreed anyone at the scene accused him of running over the deceased, nor did anyone warn him not to leave the scene.  He said several times that he had to reverse with care to avoid hitting the vehicles to the left and right of his vehicle.  This caused me to ask the defendant if his main concern when reversing was whether his large side mirrors came into contact with other vehicles to his left and right, to which he replied, “Yes.”  It was then put to him that therefore he did not pay attention to what was behind him.  He disagreed.

42.It was put to him how could he miss the old lady if he had been looking properly, unless she suddenly jumped into the path of his reversing vehicle.  He replied that he needed to look at three sides, and said, “One person is not able to see three sides.”  It is not disputed he was alone and had no one to help him on the ground reverse safely out onto a main road and reverse a significant distance.

43.I also clarified with the defendant whether it was his case that he did not hit and run over the deceased or whether he was not sure he had hit her.  He replied that he did not knock anyone underneath his vehicle.

44.This is not a case where the defendant says he did not see the deceased and was not driving dangerously at the time, but nonetheless hit her.  Here, the defence is that he did not come into contact with the deceased, nor did he cause her death.

The Law

45.The prosecution has a duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt the defendant drove dangerously and caused a death.  The defendant has no duty to prove anything.

46.The defendant has a clear record, and I have warned myself accordingly.  His credibility is in issue here, and I will take into account the defendant’s good character when considering his credibility as a witness.  I will also consider the propensity and the likelihood of this man committing this offence.  I have directed myself in accordance with the decision of Tang Siu Man HKSAR 2 [1997] 1 HKCFAR 107.

47.I repeat the issue here, and it is whether the prosecution can prove the defendant drove dangerously, hit the deceased, and caused her death.

48.Section 36(4) of Cap 374 sets out the following:

“A person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if the way he drives is far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.”

Section 36(6) and (7) sets out, in determining what would be expected of or obvious to a competent and careful driver in a particular case, what should be taken into account in all the circumstances of a case. This includes, (7):

(a) the nature, condition and use of the road concerned at the material time;

(b) the amount of traffic which is actually on the road concerned at the material time, or what might reasonably be expected to be on the road concerned at the material time.

49.The prosecution must prove what driving acts of the defendant constitute dangerous driving, and that those acts fall far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and that it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that the defendant’s driving manner or acts would be dangerous.  It is a matter to be decided objectively.  The prosecution says the blatant failure to keep a proper lookout whilst reversing was driving dangerously.

50.I referred myself to the authority of HKSAR v Lam Chi Fat CACC 89/2011.  There, the Court of Appeal said, and I quote paragraph 33:

“Dangerous driving is a conclusion which must be drawn on the basis of the acts related to the way of driving. Evidence that supports the charge of dangerous driving may include”,

amongst other examples cited, and I quote paragraph 33(3):

“Ignoring road safety regulations such as intentionally driving a vehicle that is not maintained in good condition, driving a goods vehicle that is greatly overloaded, going against traffic directions, driving a heavy goods vehicle down a very steep slope, illegal car racing...”

etc. Paragraph 34:

“Of course, the above examples are just factors to be considered in dealing with acts of dangerous driving, and they by no means represent an exhaustive list of all relevant factors.”

Paragraph 35:

“If the above or similar way of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous, then the driver concerned would be guilty of dangerous driving.”

Paragraph 37:

“The prosecution cannot rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to prove dangerous driving. See R v Kit Wing Wu [1985] 1 HKC 204.”

51.The prosecution also cites and relies on the Road Users Code, the May 2000 edition, which gives guidance on reversing, and the prosecution quotes page 45:

“Before you reverse, make sure there are no pedestrians, particularly children, behind you. Be especially careful about the blind spots behind you. That is, the parts of the road which cannot be seen from the driving seat. If there is any doubt, get out, or ask a passenger to check to make quite sure. If you cannot see clearly behind, or if driving a large vehicle, get someone to guide you when you reverse. You must not reverse unless it can be done in safety, and you must not reverse for an unreasonable distance or time. Never reverse from a side road onto a main road. Give way to other traffic and pedestrians when reversing. While reversing lights let another road user know you are reversing or about to reverse, do not rely on them. Only reverse if you can do so safely and without making other road users change speed or direction. Do not rely on reversing alarms. Always look. A pedestrian may not hear your alarm, or may be deaf.”

52.In this case, the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence to prove its case, not direct evidence of the defendant driving and hitting the victim, causing her death.

53.If an inference of guilt is to be relied upon, it can only be drawn against a defendant if it is the only reasonable inference to be drawn.  Lord Diplock said in R v Kwan Ping Bong [1979] HKLR 1 at 5:

“Requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not prevent a jury from inferring from the facts that have been the subject of direct evidence before them the existence of some further fact such as the knowledge or intent of the accused which constitutes an essential element of the offence, but the inference must be a compelling one and the only one that no reasonable man could fail to draw from the direct facts proved.”

54.The court must look at the circumstances of the case before deciding if an inference can be properly drawn.

My Findings

55.I have reminded myself of the prosecution’s burden of proof and the defendant’s clear record.  I have carefully reviewed the evidence, the documentary exhibits, P7, the CCTV footage, photographs taken, and submissions made by both parties.

56.The prosecution submits the defendant was the driver of KU-1485 and the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by this vehicle running her over.  The prosecution submits he was driving dangerously at the time, and in particular it relies, amongst other evidence, on the state of his vehicle and section 36(5) of Cap 374.  Section 36(5) says:

“A person is also to be regarded as driving dangerously within the meaning of (1) if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the motor vehicle concerned in its current state would be dangerous.”

57.The defects of Charges 4, 5 and 6 set out in the motor vehicle examiner’s report, P8, are serious defects.  When such a large vehicle reverses, it must be able to warn those behind and around it that it is reversing.  The defects made lamps and audio warnings inoperable.  A warning by lights and sound were missing.  PW3 is sure the warning sounds were not working that morning.  He noticed it because it is a vital safety device for both drivers and pedestrians.  I am sure that he was telling the truth.

58.I do bear in mind these defects alone are not evidence of dangerous driving per se.

59.The prosecution submits the defendant failed to take into account the road was narrow and very long before reversing down it contrary to section 36(7)(a).  He should have been aware of the dangers of reversing for over 60 metres to exit a side road into a main road without any further assistance.  The defendant did not comply with the Road Users Guide where reversing a vehicle is concerned.

60.It is common sense to get help if a driver has to reverse a long distance and in tight circumstances.  It is common sense that to reverse into a main road from a side road in a large vehicle is dangerous.

61.The prosecution relies on the CCTV of P7, photographs of P7A, and photographs of P3, where the deceased lay, the blood of the deceased on the right rear tyre, and the fact that it is not disputed the defendant was the only driver on that road at the time to infer the irresistible inference it was the defendant that knocked over and ran over the deceased.  It relies on the submission that the defendant could not have been paying attention to what was behind his vehicle to show the defendant drove dangerously.  He must have known his audio warning was not working and doing its job to warn others, yet still reversed without paying full attention to the rear of his vehicle.

62.The prosecution say if he had been driving carefully and competently, he would not have failed to see the deceased.  The two side-view mirrors and camera installed at the rear were such that if he had been looking to his rear, he would have seen her.  He said as much himself in his evidence.

63.The defence, in MFI-1, final submissions, do not challenge materially the evidence of any prosecution witness except, to some extent, PW3.  It is submitted PW3 only approached the deceased once, and yet says he saw her 8 feet or so from the rear of KU-1485, and also said he saw her approximately one vehicle length away from the rear of KU-1485.  This is submitted to be a discrepancy. However, with respect, PW3 clears up any discrepancy in cross-examination and re‑examination.  When he first looked, the distance was about 8 feet, but when the defendant moved forward, the distance between the deceased and the rear became greater.  He explained the two distances that he described.  In P7, the CCTV footage, one can see him look in that direction of KU-1485 before the vehicle moves forward and PW3 then walked over in its direction.  That explains how he saw and describes two distances between the deceased and the rear of that vehicle.

64.I have considered the prosecution witnesses’ evidence and find no discrepancy.  Their evidence was not materially challenged, and I am sure they all told the truth in court. I accept their evidence, especially PW3 and PW4, in their entirety.  This was, however, not a case where their credibility was of utmost importance.

65.The defence submit the evidence presented is not sufficient to prove the defendant drove dangerously and caused a death.

66.Before I consider driving manner, I must first find the defendant did hit and run over the deceased.  I do make that finding.  I am sure the evidence presented, considered together, convinces me it was KU-1485 which hit and ran the deceased over.  Sadly, the accident is played out on P7, the CCTV footage.  I am sure the deceased was still on the road when the defendant reversed towards her. The moment he runs over her can be seen in the CCTV footage when the right rear of his vehicle goes up and then down at 7:11:30 am.  I am sure the reason he then stops, drives forward, and stops again, is because he knew he had run over something or someone.

67.PW3 said she was about 8 feet, and PW4 said she was about 4 feet from the rear of the vehicle.  I am sure the deceased’s blood is found in two areas of his right rear tyre because he ran her over with that tyre.  That is the only plausible explanation.  From P3 it is clear that her blood did not run onto the road until after the ambulancemen turned her over and treated her.  The defendant could not have run over her blood spilt over the road.  I am sure it was transferred onto his tyre at the time of the accident upon impact with the deceased.  I am sure she was run over and sustained such injuries as set out in the medical reports and autopsy report.  I am sure the defendant was the only moving vehicle on that road at that time.  He agrees this, PW3 agrees this, and it is clear from P7, the CCTV footage.

68.I am sure it was the defendant that ran her over.  I infer this from the evidence presented.  I am sure it is a compelling inference, one that no reasonable man could fail to draw from the direct facts proved. 

69.The question is did the defendant drive dangerously?  I am sure, after hearing the defendant’s evidence, that his main concern as he reversed down the unnamed road was not to hit the vehicles parked to his left and right.  His attention was concentrated on his side mirrors and whether or not they touched other vehicles.  Those mirrors stuck out some distance.  The defendant said several times he was concerned about touching those parked vehicles.

70.I am sure because of this attention, he neglected the rear of his vehicle.  This must be a dangerous driving act.

71.To ensure he did not touch vehicles to the left or right of him in such a tight space, I am sure he would have had to concentrate on his side mirrors, not only looking through them, but at them to make sure they did not hit other vehicles.  He had to look out for this for some distance, not a short distance, to navigate out requiring reversing for some 60 metres in this manner.  From the CCTV one can see him driving slowly, because clearly it was in difficult circumstances.

72.Sadly, under such conditions and circumstances, I am sure he neglected the rear of his long vehicle to concentrate on the mirrors and sides of his vehicle.  This explains how he failed to see the deceased before he ran over her.

73.The aggravating factor of a lack of light warning and sound warning of his vehicle reversing sadly may have contributed to this tragedy.  She had no audio or visual warning that he was approaching her.

74.I did reject the defendant’s evidence in its entirety.  It was inherently improbable.  He suggested the vehicle moved up and down because he ran over a vegetable.  That is a desperate suggestion.  What he tells PW5 and PW6 does not tally with the evidence one sees of P7, the CCTV footage.  He tries, but is unsuccessful, in distancing himself from this tragedy.

75.I am sure if a competent and careful driver was presented the findings I have made above, he or she would find it obvious that driving in this manner was dangerous.  A competent and careful driver would be expected to ensure there was no one behind his vehicle when reversing.  To fail to do so for a prolonged period of time and over some distance is dangerous driving.  It falls well below what would be expected of such a driver.

76.Accordingly, I am sure the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant drove KU-1485 dangerously, causing the death of Madam Chow Moon.

77.It follows he failed to stop after this accident.  That is the evidence.  I find he knew he had run her over and was told to stay at the scene, but drove away.  In addition, and in respect of Charge 2, he failed to report the accident to the police as soon as reasonably practicable.

78.The defendant is convicted of Charges 1, 2 and 3 after trial.  He is convicted of Charges 4, 5 and 6 on his own plea.