HKSAR v. Ahluwalia Gurmeet Singh

DCCC 344/2018

[2019] HKDC 1331

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 344 OF 2018

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

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

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

Reasons for Verdict

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

The Charge

1.The Defendant pleads not guilty to a charge of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm.  He expressly intends to plead guilty to careless driving.  The defence stance is that the Defendant admits not keeping a proper lookout for the pedestrian stepping onto the road, even if the traffic light is in favour of the driver. 

2.The prosecution do not accept his plea and stance.  The trial proceeds by way of the original charge. 

The Accident

3.The location was the junction of Lockhart Road and Fleming Road.  I mark various positions from “A” to “H” on MFI-5 appended hereto.  The accident happened at mid-noon on 2 October 2017.  The weather was fine.  Road surface was dry.  Traffic flow was light.  There were 2 lanes on west-bound Lockhart Road and 2 lanes on east-bound Lockhart Road.  There was a safety island in between.  On 2 October 2017, Tam Wai-hung (PW1) was on the pedestrian pavement of east-bound Lockhart Road at the junction of north-bound Fleming Road.  I call this position “A”. He walked to the safety island between east-bound and west-bound Lockhart Road.  I call this position “B”.  He heard some beep sound from his left and realised that it came from a motorcycle (which the defence admit driven by the Defendant) approaching him on west-bound Lockhart Road.  He estimated it was 20 – 30 metres away at a speed of 50 – 60 kmh.  I call the motorcycle’s position “Y”.  He checked the vehicular traffic light for west-bound Lockhart Road and found it was red.  After the motorcycle passed by, he took 3 – 4 seconds to reach the pedestrian pavement of west-bound Lockhart Road where there was a light shop.  I call this position “C”.

4.There was a yellow box marked on the road surface of the junction.  There was a Mannings Store at the corner of the yellow box on west-bound Lockhart Road with one side facing Fleming Road and another side facing Lockhart Road.  I call the pedestrian pavement outside Mannings Store facing west-bound Lockhart Road position “F”.  There was a safety island between west-bound and east bound Lockhart Road.  I call this position “G”. 

5.At C, he heard some sound from his right past the yellow box marking and saw outside Mannings Store, near the middle length of the safety island and the middle of the 2 west-bound lanes of Lockhart Road, the victim 5 feet off the ground apparently due to collision with the motorcycle.  He did not see whether the victim had come out from G or from F.    

6.PW1 stayed before the police came but after the ambulance had arrived to take care of the victim apparently seriously injured.  PW1 had left his phone number for contact by police with someone at the scene.  Within half an hour, PW1 was contacted by PC 20992 (PW3) on the phone and told PW3 on the scene what he had seen.  PW3 at the scene made a record without confirming its accuracy with him.  It was stated therein that he was on the pedestrian pavement of Fleming Road outside the light shop.  I call this position “D”.  It was stated that he was going to cross Fleming Road to outside Mannings Store.  I call this position “E”.  It was stated therein that he saw the victim crossing from Mannings Store side to the safety island, ie from F to G (He denies in court that he had said so to PW3).    

7.The traffic engineer Wong Kin-nam (PW5) made a witness statement (P14) about the cycle and duration of the vehicular traffic lights at the junction.  In each cycle, the light directing west-bound Lockhart Road would regularly turn from red to red/amber for 2 seconds and then green in favour of the driver.

8.The prosecution expressly do not seek to allege any speeding on the part of the Defendant.  

My findings

9.I believe PW1 that he had not told PW3 that he was going to cross Fleming Road to outside Mannings Store when he saw the victim up in the air, or that he ever saw the victim crossing from Mannings Store side to the safety island. 

10.The distance between G, ie the safety island outside Mannings Store (and the spot of collision likewise) and B, ie the safety island opposite the light shop is 28 metres.  The distance between G and Y, ie the motorcycle’s position as first seen by PW1, is in the range of 48 – 58 metres (according to PW1’s estimate in the range of 20 – 30 metres from B). 

11.There are 4 scenarios:

(1) Scenario 1: To be first seen approaching and then seen knocking down the victim in 48 metres away in 3 seconds, the Defendant would have to be driving at 57.6 kmh to achieve this.

(2) Scenario 2: To be first seen approaching and then seen knocking down the victim in 48 metres away in 4 seconds, the Defendant would have to be driving at 43.2 kmh to achieve this.

(3) Scenario 3: To be first seen approaching and then seen knocking down the victim in 58 metres away in 3 seconds, the Defendant would have to be driving at 69.6 kmh to achieve this.

(4) Scenario 4: To be first seen approaching and then seen knocking down the victim in 58 metres away in 4 seconds, the Defendant would have to be driving at 52.2 kmh to achieve this.

12.On the basis that PW1 had taken 3 – 4 seconds to walk from the safety island to the pedestrian pavement outside the light shop after seeing the motorcycle approaching at 20 – 30 metres away, I adopt the scenario without speeding as the one most favourable to the defence, ie Scenario 2.   In this scenario, PW1 had first seen the motorcycle at 20 metres away and he had then taken 4 seconds to walk to the pedestrian pavement outside the light shop.  I cannot rule out the possibility that, during such 4 seconds of his walk, the 2 seconds of red/amber light might have come into place and then changed to green at or before the moment he saw the collision.   

13.The victim was hit near the middle of 2 lanes of west-bound Lockhart Road.  The Defendant ought to have sufficient opportunity to notice his presence and movement onto the road whether from the pedestrian pavement outside Mannings Store or from the safety island.  He could have stopped or slowed down in time to avoid the accident.  His failure to do so indicates that he had failed to keep a proper lookout for the victim crossing the road.  This amounts to careless driving but falls short of dangerous driving. 

14.A case of careless driving is proven beyond all reasonable doubt.  I convict the Defendant of careless driving.