HKSAR v. Mohammad Usman

DCCC 632/2018

[2019] HKDC 698

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 632 OF 2018

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant stands convicted after trial of one charge of failing to stop after accident whereby personal injury was caused to a person, contrary to section 56(1)(a) and (5) of the Road Traffic Ordinance[1]. The defendant was found not guilty of causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving, contrary to section 36A of the Road Traffic Ordinance.

2.Full particulars of the offence are set out in my reasons for verdict handed down today.  In summary at around 9:20 a.m. on 29 December 2017 the defendant was riding his motorcycle SN 4416 southbound on Fat Kwong Street in Ho Man Tin when he was involved in a collision with Madam Szeto Yuk Yin who was using the light controlled pedestrian crossing on Fat Kwong Street.  Madam Szeto sustained serious injuries and was admitted to Queen Elizabeth Hospital where she underwent multiple operations.

3.The defendant told the police in a record of interview (answer 2) that after the collision the motorcycle was still in motion and that he slowed down and came to a stop at the next traffic light.  I was satisfied by slowing down and stopping at the traffic light, which was about 50 meters from the collision scene, the defendant failed to stop as required by section 56(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance.   

4.After the collision the defendant made a 999 call in which he said that he hit an old lady who rushed out onto the road and asked what he should do as he had an examination to attend.  After the defendant said that he did not know if the lady was still at the scene but thought that she had left, he was told to report to the nearest police station after attending his exam.

5.In the record of interview (also answer 2) the defendant said that during the examination a police officer called Lau had called him and that after the examination he called the police officer and went to Traffic Kowloon West. 

6.Mr Laskey confirms that the police were able to contact the defendant and that after the defendant finished his exam he reported to the police.  The police were able to contact the defendant by retrieving from the 999 call centre the mobile telephone number used by the defendant to make the 999 call.  This number was the same number the police obtained after checking the registration number of the motorcycle which had been provided to the police by a minibus driver, who had seen the motorcycle but apparently did not witness the accident.    

Mitigation

7.In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Ma, including that the defendant did call 999 and not simply try leave without trace.

8.The defendant has just completed year 2 of his studies at the Open University of Hong Kong and is awaiting his results.  Academic records for year 1 have been submitted. 

9.The defendant is also a private tutor teaching English earning about $3,000 per month.  Three letters from parents of students have been submitted which speak very highly of the defendant.

Sentence

10.Failing to stop after an accident is very serious, in particular where the failure to stop is in an attempt to evade responsibility for what happened. 

11.Taking into account that the defendant did call 999 seeking assistance as to what he should do because he had an exam to attend and that after the exam he went to the police station to make a report, I am satisfied that a financial penalty is appropriate and not imprisonment or disqualification.

12.The defendant is fined $3,000, which sum is deducted from bail money, the defendant having already consented to any fine the court may impose being deducted from the bail monies.