HKSAR v. Ko Kin Ming

DCCC 1134/2023

[2025] HKDC 304

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1134 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant was charged with one count of causing death by dangerous driving, contrary to section 36(1)  of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374, Laws of Hong Kong[1]. He pleaded not guilty to the charge but offered a guilty plea to the offence of careless driving before the commencement of trial.

2.The defendant was acquitted after trial for the charge of causing death by dangerous driving but was convicted of careless driving.

The Accident

3.On the evening of 13 April 2023 at approximately 2147 hours, the defendant was driving a red Public Light Bus (‘PLB’)  bearing registration number WH6768 along Prince Edward Road West in an easterly direction.  He made a right turn at the traffic light junction onto Lai Chi Kok Road.  At the time the traffic lights were green in the defendant’s favour permitting him to make the right turn onto Lai Chi Kok Road.

4.As the defendant started to make his right turn onto Lai Chi Kok Road, the deceased was using the pedestrian crossing on Lai Chi Kok Road at the junction of Prince Edward Road West walking slowly in a westerly direction.  At the time the pedestrian crossing was displaying a red-light prohibiting pedestrians from crossing the road.

5.The defendant’s PLB struck the deceased on the front offside of the vehicle, knocking the deceased to the ground.  The deceased was conveyed to the Accident and Emergency Department of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

6.After initial treatment the deceased was transferred to the Department of Neurosurgery where on the 24 April 2023 at about 1901 hours he died.  An autopsy was performed on the deceased and the cause of death was determined to be from traumatic head injury.

7.At the time of the accident, the defendant was entering a vast junction with numerous exits that had considerable traffic.  The defendant claimed that when he made the right turn into Lai Chi Kok Road, he concentrated on keeping a lookout for vehicles to his left.  He did not look to his right.  He only noticed the deceased in front of his PLB when he aligned his vehicle after completing the right turn, but he could not stop his PLB in time and hit the deceased within two seconds upon seeing the deceased.  At the material time, the deceased had almost reached the pedestrian island on the defendant’s right.

8.Drivers should exercise caution when their vehicles approach pedestrian crossings.  However, in the present case, the lane that the defendant was turning into was partly obstructed by the pedestrian island.  As a result, vehicles turning right into the lane would have to occupy part of the traffic lane to its left.  Drivers would have to keep a lookout of the vehicles to their left when they approached the pedestrian crossing.  It was unfortunate that the deceased was crossing the pedestrian crossing against the pedestrian red-light at the same moment.

9.It was the finding of this court that the defendant’s failure to look to his right when he drove across the pedestrian crossing reflected carelessness in his manner of driving and a momentary lapse of concentration.

Previous Convictions

10.The defendant had 3 previous criminal convictions that were not related to driving offences.  In respect of his traffic record, he had one fixed penalty record.

Personal Background

11.The court called for a community service report prior to sentence.

12.According to the report, the defendant is 56 years of age.  He was born in Hong Kong.  His wife is currently employed as a security guard and their daughter is a kitchen worker.  The family has a harmonious relationship and share in the care of the defendant’s elderly mother.

13.After completion of Form 1 education, the defendant worked as a kitchen worker, restaurant waiter, and delivery worker.  From 2000, he worked as a self-employed van driver transporting goods for over 10 years.  Since 2010 he has been employed as a public light bus driver.

Mitigation

14.The defendant expressed remorse for causing the death of the deceased. He claimed to have learnt a hard lesson from the present offence.  He sought leniency from the court and planned to work as a delivery worker to support his family should he be disqualified from driving by the court.

15.Interviews were conducted with the defendant’s wife, mother and daughter.  They described the defendant as a responsible person and a family man.  He has always been gainfully employed and supported his family.

16.The investigating officer believed that the defendant has been leading a stable and decent life.  He was cooperative and showed readiness in accepting the legal consequence of the offence.  He was found to be genuinely remorseful and committed to perform unpaid work.  Community Service Order as a sentencing option was recommended by the investigating probation officer.

Sentence

17.I have considered the facts of the case, mitigation advanced by defence counsel and the grave consequence that resulted from the defendant’s careless manner of driving.

18.Although the defendant had 3 previous criminal convictions, they were not related to driving offences.  Since obtaining his driver’s license in 2000, he has only had one fixed penalty record.  I consider his driving record to be satisfactory.

19.The defendant offered to plead guilty to the charge of careless driving at the outset which reflected a degree of remorse.  His background was considered to be stable, he showed remorse and commitment to perform Community Service Order.

20.I accept the recommendation of the investigating probation officer and I sentence the defendant to 200 hours Community Service Order.  The obligations of offenders under Community Service Orders provided in section 6 of the Community Service Orders Ordinance and the consequences of any breach of section 6 provisions have been explained to the defendant.

21.According to the provisions of section 69 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374, the court may order a person convicted of any offence under the said Ordinance in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle to be disqualified from driving for a period such period as the court thinks fit.  In the present case, I order that the defendant to be disqualified from driving for 6 months.  The defendant is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving license for all classes of vehicles.  The contravention of the court’s order constitutes a criminal offence, and the defendant may be charged accordingly.