HKSAR v. Ip Kwok Keung and Another

DCCC 447/2022

[2023] HKDC 1297

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 447 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR VERDICT

________________________

A. Overview

1.D1 pleaded not guilty to Charge 1 of causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving, contrary to section 36A of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374 (“the Ordinance”). The particulars are that D1, on 23 October 2021, near Chainage 17.5B, Tolo Highway, Tai Po (“the Scene”), caused grievous bodily harm to D2 by driving a motor vehicle, namely, a private car bearing registration mark LJ961, on a road dangerously.

2.D2 pleaded not guilty to dangerous driving, contrary to section 37(1)  of the Ordinance. The particulars are that on the same day in Hong Kong, D2 drove a motorcycle bearing registration mark TC8995 on a road dangerously.

3.Nonetheless, both Ds indicated that they would plead guilty to careless driving.

4.Meanwhile, D2 pleaded guilty to:

Charge 3 of using a motor vehicle not fitted with an approved speedometer, contrary to regulations 24(1)  and 121(1)  of the Road Traffic (Construction and Maintenance of Vehicles)  Regulations, Cap 374A (“the Regulations”), and

Charge 4 of using a vehicle without reflectors in accordance with the requirements specified in the Eighth Schedule, contrary to regulations 106 and 121(1)  of the Regulations,

admitted the relevant facts and was convicted of these 2 charges.

5.The particulars of Charge 3 are that D2 on the same day in Hong Kong used TC8995 on a road when it was not fitted with an approved speedometer.

6.The particulars of Charge 4 are that D2 on the same day in Hong Kong used TC8995 on a road without reflectors fitted in accordance with the requirements specified in the Eighth Schedule of the Regulations.

7.The Prosecution (P)  and both defendants (Ds)  submitted the following exhibits:[1]

P1 Sketch of the Scene

P2(1-12)  Photos of the Scene

P3(1-15)  Photos of D2’s motorcycle

P4, 5 Dash cam recording on Leung Pak Wing’s vehicle and its copy

P13 D2’s medical report

P14 D2’s sick leave certificates

P15(1-12)  Screenshots of P4

8.P and D1 submitted:

P6, 6a D1’s Pol 153 & English translation[2]

P7, 7a His record of interview (ROI)  & translation

P16 Admitted Facts for D1

P22 MVE Accident Report on D1’s car

9.P and D2 submitted:

P17 Admitted Facts for D2

P18-20 His medical reports dated 11, 16 & 28 September 2022 respectively

P23 MVE Accident Report on D2’s motorcycle

10.P called 4 witnesses and submitted their statements as well as translations:

PW1 Leung Kai Yin (P24, 24a)

PW2 Kwan Chung Ngok (P25, 25a)

PW3 PC 7315 (P26, 26a, 27, 27a)

PW4 PC 9286 (P28, 28a, 29, 29a, 30)

11.P submitted the statements and translations of the following witnesses who did not testify:

PW5 SPC 50010 (P31, 31a)

PW6 Motor Vehicle Examiner II (P21, 21a)

PW7 PC 10557 (P32, 32a)

12.D1 testified, submitted a rear view footage of the camera on his car (Exh D1), but did not call witness.

13.D2 did not testify or call witness. This is his right and I have not drawn adverse inference against him.

14.Ds have clear records. I have drawn more favourable inference in respect of their propensity and D1’s credibility.

15.P has to prove Charges 1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt, Ds do not have to prove anything.

16.I have considered all evidence and submission in reaching the verdict.

B. Agreed & undisputed evidence

B.1. Admitted Facts for both Ds

17.Ds admitted the following facts.

18.On 23 October 2021, at around 1045, a traffic accident, involving LJ961 and TC8995 driven by D1 and D2 respectively, occurred at the Scene.

19.At 1040, PW1 was driving a private car with registration mark UV2902 from Kwong Fuk Estate to Luen Wo Hui along the 2^nd left lane[3] of Tolo Highway at about 70 km/h towards Sheung Shui. The followings took place:

(a)  A few Harley Davidson motorcycles were traveling along the 3^rd and 4^th lanes of Tolo Highway.

(b)  D1’s car was traveling on the 3^rd lane, followed by D2’s motorcycle. The latter then overtook D1’s car on the 4^th lane and drove in front of it on the 3^rd lane.

(c)  Thereafter, D1 drove to the 4^th lane. Meanwhile, D2 also drove to that lane, preventing D1’s car from overtaking him.

(d)  D1’s car cut back into the 3^rd lane and then moved in front of D2’s motorcycle on the 4^th lane.

(e)  D2 steered his motorcycle slightly to the left of the rear of D1’s car, bumped into the latter’s rear and fell onto the ground; meanwhile, D1’s car stopped.

20.PW2, D2 and 5 others, being Harley Davidson motorcycle enthusiasts, were driving along Tolo Highway. Their route was from Science Park, Tai Po, to San Tin. PW2 was driving his motorcycle with registration mark WB7780 at 70 km/h. On seeing Ds driving slowly, PW2 overtook them and drove along the 4^th lane at a constant speed.

21.On that day at 1052 at the Scene, the road was dry and the view was clear.

22.At 1135, a breath test conducted on D1 yielded 0 microgram of alcohol.

23.PW1’s dash cam recording (P4)  captured the followings:[4]

10:45:32	D1’s car appeared on the 3rd lane.
10:45:35	D2’s motorcycle appeared on the 3rd lane, closely following D1’s car.
10:45:38	PW2’s motorcycle appeared on the 4th lane to the right of D2.
10:45:41-10:45:44	D2’s motorcycle traveled to the 4th lane, in parallel with and on the nearside of PW2’s motorcycle on the same lane very closely together. Meanwhile, D1’s car was still on the 3rd lane to the left of D2.
10:45:45	D2’s and PW2’s motorcycles traveled ahead of D1’s car. D2’s motorcycle then traveled to the 3rd lane in front of D1’s car, while PW2’s motorcycle continued to travel on the 4th lane.
10:45:46-10:45:52	When D2’s motorcycle was traveling in front of D1’s car, the latter entered the 4th lane.
10:45:52-10:45:54	D2’s motorcycle also moved to the 4th lane and went in front of D1’s car. The latter then moved back to the 3rd lane.
10:45:57	D1’s car overtook D2’s motorcycle on the 4th lane.
10:45:58-10:46:00	D1’s car traveled for a while in front of D2’s motorcycle which was following closely behind.
10:46:00-10:46:01	D2’s motorcycle suddenly turned to the left on the 4th lane.
10:46:01-10:46:02	D2’s motorcycle then hit the left rear of D1’s car. D2 fell off his motorcycle and crashed onto the ground on the 4th lane.
10:46:07	D1 stopped his vehicle.

24.D2 was admitted into the intensive care unit (ICU)  of Prince of Wales Hospital, after sustaining traumatic brain injury with cerebral contusions with intraventricular hemorrhage and subdural haematoma, fractured right clavicle and ribs, renal laceration/haematoma. He underwent emergency operation with insertion of ventricular catheter.

25.D2 was given sick leave certificates for these periods: 23 October 2021 to 14 December 2021, 14 to 17 December 2021, 17 to 31 December 2021, and 31 December 2021 to 30 January 2022.

B.2. Admitted Facts for D2

26.P and D2 also admitted the followings.

27.The accident occurred soon after D1’s car had overtaken D2’s motorcycle on the 4^th left lane.

28.P4 further shows that:

(a)  at 10:45:40, D2 looked at PW2’s motorcycle on the 4^th lane;

(b)  from 10:45:45 to 10:45:46, D2’s motorcycle moved to the 3^rd lane in front of D1’s car, while PW2’s motorcycle continued to proceed along the 4^th lane; and

(c)  at 10:45:57, there was no car in front of D1 on the 3^rd lane.

B.3. D2’s medical reports

29.P13 states that D2 was tracheostomized on 28 October 2021 for slow neurological recovery.

30.P18 states that D also had subdural, subarachnoid and intraparenchymal hemorrhage, fractures across the right sphenoid wing, pterygoid plates and zygomatic arch, cervical spondylosis with small avulsed marginal osteophytes, suprarenal and perinephric haematoma with trace arterial extravasation, and small right subcapsular haematoma with possible small ulceration. There was abdominal distension on the 2^nd day in the ICU and a self-limiting seizure on the 6^th day in the ICU.

31.P19 states that D2 was referred to speech therapy by the neurosurgery department on 28 November 2021 for swallowing management. On the next day, he had severe dysphagia and global aphasia. On 14 December 2021, he was not able to tell age, place, person and time correctly. He also had mildly to moderately abnormal swallowing ability. On 20 December 2021, he had cognitive communication disorder. On 28 December 2021, he had difficulty in recalling detailed personal information.

32.P20 states that D2 underwent in-patient physiotherapy and occupational therapy, and there was residual right elbow stiffness on 29 March 2022.

B.4. PW6’s statement

33.P21 and 21a state that the steering, service brake and parking brake of D1’s car operated normally and there was no irregularity. The steering and brake of D2’s motorcycle also operated normally, but the unit shown on the speedometer was not km/h and the rear reflector was not fitted.

C. Testimonies

C.1. PW1

34.PW1 stated the followings in his witness statement:[5]

(a)  At about 1040 on 23 October 2021, he was driving UV2902 at about 70 km/h along the 2^nd lane of Tolo Highway towards Sheung Shui. Some Harley Davidson motorcycles passed by on the 3^rd and 4^th lanes.

(b)  D1’s car was traveling on the 3^rd lane, followed by D2’s motorcycle. The latter then overtook the former on the 4^th lane and moved to the front of D1’s car on the 3^rd lane.

(c)  D1’s car moved to the 4^th lane, but D2’s motorcycle also immediately moved to that lane as if it was preventing D1’s car from overtaking. Soon thereafter, D1’s car cut into the 3^rd lane and then went in front of D2’s motorcycle.

(d)  About 3 seconds after D1’s car had overtaken D2’s motorcycle, the latter moved a bit to the left on the 4^th lane as if it was trying to leave the rear area of the former. Then D2’s motorcycle bounced as if it had bumped into the rear of D1’s car and D2 fell onto the ground, while D1’s car stopped on the 4^th lane.

(e)  At that time, PW1 was about 2 lampposts’ distance away from them and he saw the accident clearly without obstruction.

35.PW1 testified the followings in court:

(a)  Very shortly before D2’s motorcycle collided with D1’s car, the latter had cut into the 4^th lane and gone in front of D2’s motorcycle.

(b)  At the material times, PW1 was driving and so he did not pay much attention to the brake lights of D1’s car or whether D1 had slowed down sharply before the accident. PW1’s statement was based on what he saw in P4.

(c)  Before D2 bumped into D1’s car, the brake lights of D1’s car was on as shown from 10:45:45 to 10:46:01 in P4.

C.2. PW2

36.PW2 stated the followings in his witness statement:[6]

(a)  He and D2, unknown to him personally, were among 7 riders who joined the Harley Davidson motorcycle gathering on the day of the accident.

(b)  At the material times, PW2’s motorcycle was traveling at about 70 km/h. When it was several hundred metres before reaching the Scene, D1’s car was in front of D2’s motorcycle, both of which were travelling much slower than PW2’s on the 3^rd lane. So PW2 cut into the 4^th lane to overtake them and then kept travelling at a constant speed following the fleet.

(c)  PW2 did not witness the accident.

37.PW2 testified the followings in court:

(a)  At the material times, he did not apply the brake at any stage, including the time when he was in front of D1’s car.

(b)  From 10:45:38 to 10:45:43 in P4 and right before the accident, the brake lights of his motorcycle were not on.

C.3. PW3

38.PW3 stated in his witness statement[7] that between 1109 and 1112 on the day of the accident, D1 told him that after cutting into the 4^th lane and driving for about 100 metres, PW2’s motorcycle was moving slowly; so D1 slowed down and then the rear of his car was bumped against by D2’s motorcycle from behind.

39.PW3 testified in court that D1 did not say he or PW2 applied the brake.

C.4. PW4

40.PW4 stated the followings in his witness statement.[8] At 1108 on the day of the accident, D1 told him that at the material times, D1 was driving along the 3^rd lane at 80 km/h; around 100 metres before reaching the Scene, due to the slow traffic ahead on the 3^rd lane, D1 cut into the 4^th lane; thereafter, the traffic ahead became slow too, so D1 slowed down; at this juncture, the rear of his car was hit by the front of D2’s motorcycle.

41.PW4 testified the followings in court:

(a)  He took the ROI with D1 who signed for each answer before he asked the next question.

(b)  Answer 4 states, inter alia, ‘[PW2’s] motorcycle in front of [D1] applied the brake. [D1] therefore applied the brake as well.’ This is different from what D1 said at the Scene, ie he slowed down. But PW4 did not seek clarification from D1 because the ROI, taken under caution, was the most accurate. PW4 disagreed that D1 signed the ROI because PW4 had suggested to D1 that slowing down the car means braking it.

(c)  D1 wrote the declaration[9] at the end and amended Answer 9[10]. The ROI including the answers is accurate.

(d)  PW4 asked D1 about the memory card of the camera on the latter’s car. He did not ask whether the camera had any footage of the accident or how to retrieve its footage because he believed that no recording was made without memory card.

C.5. D1

42.It was stated the followings in the ROI:[11]

(a)  He had secondary school education and around 30 years of driving experience.

(b)  At the material times, his car was functioning normally.

(c)  Before the accident, his car was traveling along the 3^rd lane at around 80 km/h. Suddenly, D2’s motorcycle cut into the 3^rd lane from the fourth in a distance of around 5 feet ahead of D1’s car, then immediately applied the brake with the brake lights on and moved very slowly. Thus, D1 changed to the 4^th lane. Then D2’s motorcycle immediately changed to that lane in front of D1 and applied the brake with the brake lights on. Afterwards, D1 changed to the 3^rd lane, overtook D2, and returned to the 4^th lane. ‘After traveling for a while, [PW2’s] motorcycle in front of [D1] applied the brake. [D1] therefore applied the brake as well.’ A few seconds later, the rear of D1’s car was hit.[12]

(d)  D1 explained that he returned to the 4^th lane because ‘[D1] did not want him to play tricks on [D1] like before, so [D1] “cut” (lane)  in front of D2 with the intention to keep speeding up and leave. Unexpectedly, [PW2’s] motorcycle in front slowed down and so [D1] slowed down as well.’[13]

(e)  When D1 cut into the 4^th lane, the distance between the rear of his car and the front of D2’s motorcycle was the length of 2 to 3 private cars.

(f)  PW2 applied the brake on the 4^th lane as shown at 10:45:59 in P4.

43.D1 testified the followings in court:

(a)  He was 60 years old. Before he retired in 2017, he was the chief customs officer of the Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department. Thereafter, he had been an assistant customs. He had had driving license since 1993. He was familiar with driving LJ961 which he had had for 10 odd years until the accident.

(b)  D1 knew at the start of the interview that he had been arrested for dangerous driving and his answers would be important. He wrote the declaration at the end.

(c)  He disagreed that Answer 4 is accurate. He clarified that what actually happened was that upon seeing the red lights of PW2’s motorcycle ahead were on, he slowed down. He did say this at the interview but PW4 responded that this was the same as braking. D1 did not know that there was a big difference between slowing down and braking, hence he signed the ROI. Apart from these clarifications, the ROI is accurate.

(d)  D1 cut into the 3^rd lane from the fourth because earlier on D2’s motorcycle had cut into the 4^th lane from the third and braked and it was very slow.

(e)  For Answer 5, he elaborated that he changed from the 3^rd lane to the fourth because D2 had disturbed and played with him by cutting into the 3^rd lane in front of him and braking. The other motorcyclists were also playing by cutting into each other’s lane and D1 did not want to be part of it. But he did not expressly mention in the ROI that he was also disturbed by other motorcycles. He explained that in Answer 5,[14] he actually meant the group of motorcyclists when he said ‘him’[15].

(f)  D1 added that he cut into the 4^th lane, the fast lane, intending to leave as soon as possible. However, after watching P4, he agreed that at that time his better choice would have been to go along the 3^rd lane.

(g)  D1 was not annoyed or angered by D2 because D1 had no idea what the latter was doing, neither did D1 want to teach him a lesson or give him a scare by cutting into the 4^th lane in front of him.

(h)  D1 did not remember whether before he had cut into the 4^th lane for the last time, he signaled the right indicator lights, but he usually did that.

(i)  He was aware of the requirement under the Road Users’ Code that one should only overtake on the right side of the other vehicle.

(j)  There was 1 private car’s length between his car and D2’s motorcycle behind when he was cutting into the 4^th lane. There were roughly 2 private cars’ length or 7 odd metres (i)  between his car and PW2’s motorcycle ahead at that stage, and (ii)  between his car and D2’s motorcycle after he had cut into the 4^th lane.

(k)  D1 said in-chief that PW2’s motorcycle had its red brake lights on and slowed down. The lights were those shown from 10:45:38 to 10:45:43 in P4. But under cross-examination by P, D1 said actually he did not know whether those were brake lights or red rear lights shown at 10:45:38 in P4. Then under re-examination, D1 said that PW2 did brake his motorcycle.

(l)  Afterwards, D1 slowed down but did not brake because he was going uphill. He disagreed that P4[16] shows that the brake lights of his car were on, or that Exh D1[17] shows that he had braked and his car slowed down suddenly and sharply.

(m)  The camera on D1’s car had no memory card and its footage was stored on the cloud. Exh D1, a rear view footage, was downloaded and saved to a DVD as well as a USB by him after he had retrieved his car from the police. He never tampered, interfered with or altered it. He did not download the front view footage because it did not capture the accident, not because it captured that there was no vehicle slowing down in front of him.

(n)  D1 explained that he did not provide Exh D1 to the police because he did not know he needed to do so and the police had not asked for it.

D. Analysis of evidence

D.1. PWs

44.Ms Ma for D1 argued that PW2’s evidence that he did not brake or slow down his motorcycle when he was ahead of D1 on the 4^th lane is unreliable because he had not known about the accident before he arrived at his destination. I disagree because (a)  whether PW2 braked or slowed down his motorcycle is unrelated to when he knew that the accident happened; and (b)  it is not noted in P4 that PW2’s motorcycle slowed down or braked in front of D1’s car.

45.Having meticulously considered all PWs’ evidence, I find that they testified directly and sincerely, their testimonies are reasonable, consistent and supportive of each other. I find them honest and reliable and accept their evidence.

D.2. D1

46.Mr Laskey for D2 argued that the provenance of Exh D1 is not satisfactory. However, I find that D1’s evidence in this regard may be true and I accept it.

47.Nonetheless, I do not accept the following parts of D1’s versions in the ROI and in court:

(a)  He explained that eventually he cut into the 4^th lane because D2 had played with him by cutting into the 3^rd lane in front of him but he wanted to leave; meanwhile, the other motorcyclists were also playing by cutting into each other’s lane but he did not want to be part of this. I reject D1’s explanations for these reasons:

(i)  P4 shows that, except D2, no motorcyclist cut into the other’s lane.

(ii)  Before D1 cut from the 3^rd lane into the fourth for the last time, there had been no vehicle ahead on the 3^rd lane. At that stage, both lanes were in the same direction. Thus D1 could have left by traveling on the 3^rd lane. He also agreed in court that his better choice would have been to keep traveling along the 3^rd lane.

(b)  D1 said that he was not annoyed or angered by D2 because he had no idea what the latter was doing, neither did he want to teach him a lesson or give him a scare by cutting into the 4^th lane in front of him. I reject this. Given the above analysis in (a), D1 had no good reason to cut into the 4^th lane. Moreover, D2 had cut into D1’s front twice beforehand. Hence, the only reasonable inference is that D1 cut into the 4^th lane to prevent D2’s motorcycle from overtaking him.

(c)  D1 said that there were roughly 2 private cars’ length or 7 odd metres between his car and D2’s motorcycle after he had cut into the 4^th lane. I reject this because Exh D1 shows that that distance was surely less.

(d)  D1 said that PW2 braked and slowed down in front of him on the 4^th lane. I reject this because:

(i)  according to the Admitted Facts for D1, PW4 drove along the 4^th lane at a constant speed after overtaking him and D2;

(ii)  under cross-examination by P, D1 said that actually he did not know whether the lights on PW2’s motorcycle were brake lights or rear lights;

(iii)  Ms Ma argued that D1 might have mistakenly believed that the red rear lights of PW2’s motorcycle were brake lights, but I disagree given D1’s 30 years of driving experience and the fact that the rear lights of PW2’s motorcycle did not flash anyway; and

(iv)  P4 does not show that PW2’s motorcycle braked or slowed down in front of D1 on the 4^th lane.

(e)  D1 said that he did not brake but only slowed down his car before the collision. I reject this for these reasons:

(i)  Although he told PW3 and PW4 that he slowed down the car and did not tell them that he braked, it was stated in Answer 4 of the ROI that he braked.

(ii)  He signed the declaration[18] at the end of the RIO and amended Answer 9, indicating that he knew he could amend Answer 4 if it was inaccurate; nonetheless, he did not do so.

(iii)  He had been the Chief Customs Officer before retirement and was an assistant customs at the time of the interview. He also knew that he had been arrested for dangerous driving at the outset of the interview and that his answers were important. Thus, if he never said he braked, he would definitely have amended Answer 4, but he did not.

48.Although I do not accept the above parts of D1’s evidence, this does not mean that he is guilty because the burden is on P.

49.Meanwhile, I accept the rest of D1’s versions because they are not unreasonable, inconsistent or contradicted by agreed or undisputed evidence.

E. Verdict

E.1. Charge 1

50.I have considered the case authorities cited by P and Defence including R v Conteh [2004] RTR 1, HKSAR v Lam Chi Fat [2012] 1 HKLRD 968 and HKSAR v Lui Chung Tak CACC 221/2012.

51.Having had regard to all the evidence, submission, the relevant circumstances of this case according to s36A(13)  of the Ordinance and the case authorities, I find that D1 did drive dangerously as he drove far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and that it would be obvious to such a driver that driving in the way D1 did would be dangerous in terms of injury to person or of serious damage to property for the following reasons:

(a)  As stated in para 47(a)  & (b)  above, D1 must have cut into the 4^th lane to prevent D2’s motorcycle from overtaking him.

(b)  P4 shows that he did not signal the right indicator lights at any stage of his cutting into the 4^th lane.

(c)  He cut from the left side of D2’s motorcycle, against the Road Users’ Code[19].

(d)  When D1’s car was cutting into the 4^th lane, there was only 1 private car’s length between his car and D2’s motorcycle behind. This was certainly not a safe distance given that they were traveling at about 70 to 80 km/h. Ms Ma also fairly conceded that this was a close and an insufficient distance.[20]

(e)  D1 braked on the 4^th lane ahead of D2 before the collision, according to his ROI, P4 and PW1’s evidence. There was no good reason to do so because PW2’s motorcycle was traveling at a constant speed and did not brake or slow down in front of D1 who was not speeding. Thus, the only reasonable inference is that D1 braked to prevent D2 from overtaking him.

52.Ms Ma argued that P has not proved that the collision must have been caused by D1’s driving manner because it could be caused by D2’s misjudgment.[21] I disagree. Before the collision, D2’s motorcycle was turning to the left indicating that he was going to cut into the 3^rd lane from the fourth. Nevertheless, the distance between him and D1’s car ahead was shortened abruptly because of the latter’s braking. This must have resulted in D2 having less, and hence inadequate, time and space to change lanes or to keep a safe distance from D1’s car, causing the front of D2’s motorcycle to collide with the rear of D1’s car.

53.Consequently, D2 fell onto the ground and was immediately admitted into the hospital where he was found to have sustained the above injuries. Accordingly, D1 must have caused grievous bodily harm to D2 by driving his car at the Scene dangerously.

54.Hence, P has proved Charge 1 against D1.

E.2. Charge 2

55.Having had regard to all the evidence, submission, the relevant circumstances of this case according to s37(7)  of the Ordinance and the case authorities, I find that D2 did drive dangerously as he drove far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and that it would be obvious to such a driver that driving in the way D2 did would be dangerous in terms of injury to person or of serious damage to property for the following reasons:

(a)  According to D1’s ROI, D2 cut from the 4^th lane into the third in front of D1 in a distance of only about 5 feet when they were traveling at about 70 to 80 km/h. That was certainly not a safe distance.

(b)  Also according to D1’s ROI, immediately thereafter, D2’s motorcycle braked and moved very slowly. I find that D2 had no good reason to do so because P4 shows that there was no vehicle ahead and he was not speeding. Thus, the only reasonable inference is that he braked to prevent D1 from overtaking him.

(c)  According to the Admitted Facts for D2, P4 and the evidence of PW1 as well as D1, D2 drove to the 4^th lane in front of D1, braked and moved slowly, preventing D1 from overtaking him.

56.Hence, P has proved Charge 2 against D2.

57.Accordingly, D1 and D2 are convicted of Charge 1 and Charge 2 respectively.