HKSAR v. Lau Mei Mei

DCCC 343/2023

[2024] HKDC 515

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 343 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to charges 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 on this indictment. They are respectively Causing grievous harm by dangerous driving, driving an unlicensed vehicle, using that vehicle without third party insurance and two offences of failing to provide a specimen of blood for laboratory test. All the offences occurring on the same day and arising out of the same incident that occurred on 27 October 2022.

2.The facts that the defendant has admitted show that the police were conducting an ANPR check on vehicles near the Metro Harbour View Plaza on the West Kowloon Corridor.  That check showed the vehicle was driving had an expired licence and the police officers in their vehicle then followed the defendant’s vehicle and instructed the defendant to stop for enquiry.  The defendant did not comply with this and then there was a chase of the defendant that resulted in her driving into another vehicle.

3.The description of the police chase can be found in the facts, I will give some summary of that.  The car originated going along the West Kowloon Corridor and when it reached the junction of Lai Chi Kok Road and Broadway the vehicle defendant was driving jumped the traffic lights which were displaying red and jumped another set of lights after that causing pedestrians to swiftly move aside and avoid the vehicle.  Police continued to chase the vehicle. 

4.When the vehicle eventually reached the Kwai Chung Road which had a speed limit of 70 kilometres an hour, the vehicle was weaving in and out of traffic while travelling around 90 kilometres an hour switching from the first to the second lane and crossing hatched areas of the emerging chevron.  The vehicle then travelled along Tsuen Wan Road, overtook other vehicles and switched lanes whilst crossing the solid white lines.  The vehicle then got to the Tsuen Wan Road near the Tsuen Tsing interchange, switched lane while crossing the solid white line and took the exit to the Tsuen Tsing interchange.  The vehicle then proceeded along to the Texaco Road and cut through the Texaco Road switching lanes near the Buddhist Lam Bing Yim Memorial School, went from the left second lane to the left first lane crossing a solid white line.

5.The defendant then drove along Texaco Road exiting at the Tsuen Kam interchange towards Cheung Pei Shan Road then travelled along Cheung Pei Shan Road at a speed of around 100 kilometres per hour, the speed limit of that road being 70 kilometres per hour.  There was not a lot of traffic on the Cheung Pei Shan Road so the police car overtook the vehicle, positioned itself in front of the vehicle and pressed its brakes to try to force the vehicle to reduce speed and stop.  However, the vehicle in fact did stop but made a U-turn and drove back down the road against the flow of traffic.  Police gave chase making a U-turn themselves but they were some way behind.  Defendant was driving faster, driving against oncoming traffic at speeds that were obviously in excess of 100 kilometres per hour while weaving in and out of that traffic and abruptly switching lanes.  At some point the vehicle was travelling at around 110 kilometres per hour while weaving in and out of traffic.  Eventually the vehicle reached the end of the Tsuen Mun Road still driving against oncoming traffic, switched lanes and had a head-on collision with a white Mercedes Benz.  After colliding with the Mercedes Benz, the vehicle lost control and further collided into a Silver Mazda.

6.These events were captured on the car-cams of the various vehicles and have been shown to the court, I have seen the driving itself.  I can describe the driving as appalling.  It is fortunate that people were not killed as a result of this chase, especially the last part where the vehicle was driving against the flow of traffic.  There was reckless driving which was obviously dangerous.  As a result of that collision that occurred, the driver of the Benz, Mr Hall(?)  and the defendant suffered injuries.  They were taken to the Princess Margaret Hospital for medical treatment.  The driver of the Mazda, Mr Wong, suffered what are described as relatively light injuries and went to a clinic for medical treatment.

7.It was found the defendant was holding a learner’s driving licence at the time and the licence of the vehicle was found to be expired.  No learner plates were displayed.  The charges in respect of that lie on the file.

8.The defendant was confirmed later that day to be suitable for cautioned interview for obtaining samples.  Attempts were made to obtain samples from the defendant, she refused and that resulted in charges 6 and 7.

9.As far as the vehicles were concerned, the Benz suffered severe damage to the right passenger door and severe damage to the front bumper, and the Mazda, severe damage to the front bumper.  Injuries sustained by the various people can be seen again in the Admitted Facts.  The driver of the Benz, PW1, suffered a pelvic fracture and right femur fracture, had multiple operations or treatments performed between 27 October 2022 and 23 October 2023, continued to attend ongoing physiotherapy treatment and had been granted sick leave from 27 October 2022 to 28 November 2022 and 29 December 2022 to 23 February 2023.  The driver of the Mazda received contusion abrasion on the forehead, lower lip and right hand and some other what are described as not severe injuries.  Defendant was found to have tenderness over her left lower chest and right groin and suffered a fracture of the right superior pubic ramus.

10.Examination of the speeds of the vehicle put the speed of the vehicle driven by the defendant at in excess of 90 kilometres per hour and the Benz which collided into it in excess of a 100 kilometres per hour with a margin of about 10 per cent on either side.

11.Those constitute the facts of the case for sentencing.  I have had the antecedents of the defendant.  She is aged 53.  She has a number of previous convictions mainly related to drugs, possession of dangerous drugs, at least five previous convictions of trafficking, at least two previous convictions of possession of dangerous drugs for unlawful trafficking.  She has offences of forging or possession of forged driving licence and documents, assault and failing to surrender to custody.  The most recent conviction that are relevant for sentencing today relate to an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs on 22 February 2022 when she was sentenced to a total of 47 months’ imprisonment and then later on 6 June 2023 sentenced for the offence of possession of forged driving documents or vehicle documents where she received a sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment, 6 months of which was ordered to run consecutively to her existing sentence.  Her antecedents show that on the basis of those most recent convictions the defendant will be imprisoned up until 23 October 2025 as a result of those convictions.

12.The defendant has had various medical problems in the past.  I have a medical report, a recent one dated 11 March 2024. She has had problems with hepatitis C infections probably as a result of her drug use, urinary tract infections, and hypertension.  I think it can be said that the various medical conditions are now under control.

13.As far as her mitigation is concerned, she has pleaded guilty and admitted this matter from an early stage.  I am told she received an education up to F2 level, being unemployed since 2011 and in receipt of CSSA at around $7,000 per month and we can see between 1985 to 2022 she has 18 previous convictions mainly relating to dangerous drugs.  In respect of the accident, she suffered a fracture of her right pubis.

14.I have been referred to various sentencing.  Looking at the most recent sentencing perhaps guideline in the case of SJ v Chu Wing Yin Christine [2021] HKLRD as it relates to sentencing for the 1^st offence, causing grievous bodily harm by way of dangerous driving where that case indicated that the normal sentence for such an offence will be one of immediate imprisonment and the sentence would involve two assessments.  First, is the dangerousness of the defendant’s driving and any multiple moral culpability, and secondly, then consider the impact and harm caused to the victims of the offence.

15.Here we can see that the defendant was an unlicensed driver driving at high speeds, weaving in and out of traffic, driving through red traffic lights, driving against the flow of traffic, highly reckless and dangerous driving. She was clearly familiar with the operations of the vehicle and was aware through the time that she drove the vehicle that she was being chased by the police and should have stopped for them.  Clearly a prison sentence of some length is required to show the public displeasure with driving of this nature, also a lengthy disqualification would be appropriate.  I do bear in mind the nature of the injury caused to the victim and the damage to his vehicle is also substantial.

16.Having taken all those factors into consideration, on the 1^st charge, I determine that a starting point for sentence at 27 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.  That will reduce to 18 months’ imprisonment for her plea of guilty.  I am also going to order a disqualification for driving for 5 years for that offence.

17.On the 2^nd offence, the defendant was driving an unlicensed vehicle.  It is her second conviction for that.  A term of imprisonment is appropriate.  I will take a starting point of 6 weeks, reducing that to 4 weeks’ imprisonment for her plea of guilty.

18.On the 3^rd offence, the defendant faces an offence of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance.  Here I am going to impose a sentence of imprisonment.  I take a starting point of 4.5 months’ imprisonment, reduce that to 3 months’ imprisonment for her plea of guilty.  There will be disqualification for driving for 3 years on that offence.

19.The final two offences relate to the defendant’s failure to provide a specimen after being required by police, a specimen of blood or urine.  I consider these both warrant prison sentences.  I will take a starting point of 4½ months on each and reduce that to 3 months’ imprisonment for her pleas of guilty.  Also I shall make an order of sentence of 5 years’ disqualification on each of those.

20.As the offences are all committed at the same time and in the same circumstance, I am going to order that all terms of imprisonment be served concurrently, that is a total of 18 months’ imprisonment and by operation of law all the disqualifications operate concurrently as well.

21.The final consideration is to what extent that sentence should be served consecutively or concurrently to the existing sentence for which the defendant will complete sometime in October of 2025.  Obviously this is a serious matter involving a serious car chase where injury and damage was caused to people and it must be reflected to a certain extent in the sentence scheme imposed upon her.  I must also bear in mind the overall totality of all the sentences she is currently serving.  I shall simply order that 12 months of this sentence be served consecutive to her existing sentence.  That will be the order of the court.