HKSAR v. Woo Ka Wah Wilcox

DCCC 1254/2023

[2024] HKDC 1793

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1254 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR VERDICT

________________________

Introduction

1.The defendant is charged with one offence of causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving.  He has entered a plea of guilty to careless driving.

2.The defence concedes that the defendant did cause grievous bodily harm to the victim and that grievous bodily harm occurred as a result of an accident whereby the defendant drove carelessly.  He maintains that his standard of driving did not fall far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.

The Facts

3.The totality of the prosecution case, the defendant being the driver, the accident and resulting injuries are all admitted by the defendant.

4.The accident occurred on 2 June 2023 in How Ming Street, Kwun Tong, at around 15.30 hours.

5.The accident location is a one-way street.  It is not a pedestrian crossing.

6.The weather was fine, the road was dry.  There was no other traffic. The defendant was the driver of a private car which was initially parked at the accident location.  The victim was a pedestrian walking along the nearside of the road.  The defendant then drove his vehicle into the road and stopped in the carriageway.  At that time the victim decided to cross the road almost immediately behind the defendant’s vehicle.

7.When the victim had reached a position immediately behind the centre of the defendant’s vehicle.  The defendant commenced to reverse knocking down the victim.  The defendant stopped quickly and left the car to examine the victim. This was all captured by the dash cam of a taxi.  The victim suffered injuries that amounted to grievous bodily harm.

8.The defendant gave evidence.  In his evidence he said that he wished to reverse his car to park it on the other side of the road.  He checked his right and left mirrors before reversing.  He said he had not checked his central mirror and conceded that was careless.  He was unaware of the victim’s presence on the road before he commenced to reverse.

9.I accepted the defendant’s account of the accident it was consistent with the dash cam footage.

10.It would appear that the victim had passed the nearside of the car and would not have been visible in the nearside mirror before the reversing maneuver started.

The Issue

11.The issue presented by the evidence is whether the defendant’s driving fell far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver as required by S 36A(10)(a)  and was obviously dangerous in terms of Section 36A(10)(b).

Determination

12.In this case these are none of the usual indicia of dangerous driving such as high speed or the ignoring of relevant road signage.  The driver of a vehicle is himself entitled to assume that a pedestrian will not endanger themselves. A driver in a carriageway may not perceive the presence of a pedestrian there as an obvious risk, unlike the presence of a vehicle.

13.The pedestrian in this case walked out into the carriageway directly behind the defendant’s vehicle.  It is however the case that had the defendant checked his centre mirror he would most probably have seen the victim. 

14.Nevertheless this is an error of judgment but not a blatant disregard for the safety of others as the defendant did institute a check with the other mirrors.

15.The defendant simply did not pay sufficient care and attention to this maneuver. He was careless.

16.This is a case when the Court should convict under s38(1)  of the ordinance for Careless Driving and I according do so.