香港特別行政區 訴 霍仲明

DCCC 453/2024

[2025] HKDC 654

香港特別行政區

區域法院

刑事案件2024年第453號

________________________

________________________

________________________

判刑理由書

________________________

背景

1.被告人霍仲明先生被控以一項「危險駕駛引致他人死亡」罪，違反香港法例第374章《道路交通條例》第36(1)條[1]。霍先生在本席席前否認控罪，經審訴後，他被判罪名成立。

2.代表霍先生的温柏鏗大律師在審訊前表明，霍先生會承認「不小心駕駛」罪；因此，本案的爭議主要集中於控方能否在無合理疑點下證明，案發時霍先生的駕駛態度是危險的；本案的事實爭議不大。

3.經審訴後，本席裁定霍先生罪名成立。本席認為案發時，霍先生並非只是一時大意失神，導致意外，而是霍先生多項過失造成的，主要包括[2]：

(a)  案發地點是個輕微下斜的路段，霍先生的視野較平路或向上斜的路段更廣闊；

(b)  案發時不論天氣、路面狀況、涉案車輛(V1)的機件、性能，及霍先生的身體狀況都是良好的；

(c)  霍先生並沒有因應路面情況及車頭檔風玻璃的雜物而造成的視線障礙，靈活的來移動身體、轉動頭部及眼睛等，以獲取適合的駕駛視野；

(d)  霍先生理應熟悉案發的路面設施，包括該人行通道；

(e)  案發時有多人在使用該路段；

(f)  事主雖然在控制他的交通燈為紅色時橫過馬路，但他並非以「攝車罉」方式過馬路或突然衝出馬路；他用了約4秒時間橫過馬路，在接近完成横過馬路時才給的V1的右邊車頭撞到；

(g)  根據專家推算，在對霍先生最有利的情況下，他理應在碰撞前1.6秒就察覺到撞倒事主的危機，並盡力刹車，意外還是可以避免的；但霍先生是在撞擊後才刹車；

(h)  霍先生在袋口位的讓線前沒有停下就駛出横過牛頭角道北行方向的行車道，期間又將注意力只集中於(fixate)以上車道的車輛，並沒有留意其他路面使用者(包括事主)；及

(i)  右轉前，霍先生沒有亮着右指揮燈，令事主無法預知霍先生會右轉。

4.霍先生在2000年有一項與本案無關的使用假身份証罪的刑事定罪紀錄，本席無需處理。他有多項交通定額罰款紀錄，主要為超速，亦與本案無關。

起刑點

5.根據相關法例，霍先生可處罸款$50,000元、監禁10年、取消駕駛資格最少5年及要自費的參與及完成駕駛改進課程。

6.上訴法庭在Secretary for Justice v Liu Kwok Chun（廖國鎮）[2011] HKC 70案中指出，危險駕駛的罪責可以分為兩種不同的類別：其中一類為意外發生屬駕駛者的一時判斷而導致；而另一種則為駕駛者自私地罔顧其他道路使用者或其他乘客的安全，或在駕駛時有某程度的魯莽，而後者是較為嚴重的類別。

7.上訴法庭在廖國鎮案中考慮了英國案例R v Cooksley & Ors [2003] 3 ALL ER 40，Cooksley案判詞的第15段提到，法庭可以考慮一些就着危險駕駛導致他人死亡罪行的加刑因素，包括車輛超速、駕駛時出現可以避免的分心、過往的交通違例紀錄，尤其涉及不良駕駛態度等。於該案中，英國的上訴庭就此控罪的判刑以犯罪性髙低分四大類別，分別為：沒有任何加刑因素的刑期為12至18個月監禁、中度罪責的刑期為兩至三年監禁、高度罪責的刑期為四至五年監禁及非常嚴重的罪責的刑期為六年以上監禁，當時英國有關控罪的最髙判罰為10年。故上訴庭在廖國鎮案中，亦建議法庭在判刑時可參考及核對Cooksley案中相關的判刑類別。

8.在香港特別行政區 訴 李天生CACC 271/2009，申請人駕駛輕型貨車，在繁忙時段在行人眾多的地點及有行人過馬路的地方以高車速急轉彎導致車失控，衝上行人路造成意外。經審訊後被裁定危險駕駛導致一人死亡，另三人受傷。上訴法庭強調「一輛汽車在不負責任的駕駛者手中，可以是極具殺傷力的兇器。駕駛者必需時刻緊記小心駕駛避免對無辜市民造成傷亡」。然而考慮到申請人初犯，沒有駕駛犯錯紀錄，認為2年監禁足以反映他應負的罪責。

9.辯方援引香港特別行政區 訴 陳潤平CACC 34/2018，在2016年12月19日下午約4時許，該案申請人駕駛輕型貨車沿砵蘭街行駛，駛至與咸美頓街交界讓路線前，申請人隨前車停下，當前車向前駛時，申請人沒有在路口讓線停下而直接緊隨前車駛出路口右轉，車速不高，約時速14公里，沒有亮起右轉指示燈，忽略在橫過馬路的途人，撞到一名橫過咸美頓街且已步至路中間的女途人，女途人其後傷重不治。上訴法庭認為12個月的量刑基準足以反映該案的性質和嚴重程度。

10.在Secretary for Justice v Law Siu Kiu [2023] 2 HKLRD 814，上訴法院整合了相關判刑原則及判刑的步驟：

“21. In Secretary for Justice v Chu Wing Yin Christine,[3] a case which is concerned with causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving, with a maximum of 7 years' imprisonment on indictment, the dominant factor of a defendant's culpability was examined. Macrae V-P said:

[53] …This will involve two related assessments. The first is the objective dangerousness of the defendant's driving; the second is his moral culpability.

…

[55] There will of course, be an overlap or inter-twining of these two assessments, one of which focuses more on what the driver did, the other on why he did it. Both, however, are concerned with addressing the dominant question of culpability.

22. The second step is to assess the harm. Macrae V-P went

on to say:

[57] In assessing the issues of culpability and harm, a sentencing judge will have regard to the sort of aggravating factors described in the authorities, mindful that they do not represent an exhaustive list, and conscious that the value to be placed on any particular factor will vary according to the circumstances of each case.

23. Some aggravating factors were listed by Zervos JA in his separate judgment:

[80] Aggravating factors may include:

(i)  the extent and nature of the injuries inflicted;

(ii)  the number of people put a(t)  risk;

(iii)  the degree of speed;

(iv)  the extent of intoxication or of substance abuse (see section 36A(7)  of the RTO);

(v)  whether there was erratic or aggressive driving;

(vi)  whether there was competitive driving or showing off;

(vii)  the length of the journey during which others were exposed to risk;

(viii)  whether there was any ignoring of warnings;

(ix)  whether the offender was escaping police pursuit;

(x)  the degree of sleep deprivation;

(xi)  whether the offender failed to stop;

(xii)  the fact that the offence took place at a pedestrian crossing (see Secretary for Justice v Lam Siu Tong); and

(xiii)  whether the offender was driving a public service vehicle (see HKSAR v Man Chun Pun).

24. In assessing the overall culpability of the offender, it is not a case of counting the number of aggravating or mitigating factors and then arriving at a starting point by mechanical means. Ma CJHC (as he then was)  remarked in Secretary for Justice v Poon Wing Kay:[4]

[9] (4)  …Sentencing is not quite that exact an exercise and courts must be sufficiently nimble to take into account the overall picture in order to arrive at an appropriate sentence. In some cases, the fact that only some aggravating factors exists, but no others (such as in the present case), may still bring the case into a very serious category.

11.事發時，霍先生沒有衝燈、超速、醉酒駕駛或者其他違反交通規例的行為，他的車速約為時速20公里，屬較慢車速。本席主要考慮事主因本案而過生及對其家屬的傷害。

12.案發於光天白日行人眾多的路段，事主雖然違反限制行人的交通訊號，但他有約4秒時間是可以被清楚看見的；在碰撞前不少於1.6秒，如果霍先生盡力剎車的話，意外是可以避免的；及霍先生一直沒有留意到事主。總括而言，本席認為本案是屬於Cooksley一案中，中度罪責的類別，因此起刑點為監禁2年。

減刑、加刑、總刑期

13.温大律師求情指霍先生原本為自僱輕型貨車司機，月入約$40,000；事發後沒有再駕駛，轉為地盤雜工，月入約$20,000，是家庭主要經濟支柱；事發後有真誠的震驚，導致精神及心理也現問題，需要覆診。太太患有抑鬱症、甲狀腺瘤等疾病；兒子14歲，有強迫症、潛在自閉症及過度活躍症、及被評為智力低下及有讀寫障礙。霍先生的背景報告確認以上情況。

14.上訴法庭在Secretary for Justice v Lam Siu Tong （林兆棠）[2009] 5 HKLRD 601案中第13段指出良好背景及悔意在無辜傷亡的情況下只可佔一個很輕的考量：

“We wish to make the following additional observations:

(1)  Almost invariably in mitigation for the offence of dangerous driving causing death, the sentencing court is provided with details going to the good character of the accused. The court is also usually informed of the deep remorse that is expressed. The present cases provided no exception.

(2)  And yet the one fact that must not be overlooked is that an innocent life has been taken away as a result of an act or omission that could and should have been avoided. Dangerous driving invariably involves the taking of a risk or risks whilst being in control of a potentially lethal machine. There is no acceptable excuse for dangerous driving; nothing can justify the loss of a life or lives consequent upon it. As Yeung JA remarked in香港特別行政區 訴 歐陽國堅(HKSAR v Au Yeung Kwok Kin), unreported, CACC 21/2008, 25 August 2008, the courts will not show leniency to any driver who has endangered the lives and safety of other road users.

(3)  In these circumstances, good character and remorse may count very little. These certainly count very little, or not at all, for the family and all those connected with a victim who has died as a result of an act or omission that could entirely have been avoided. The serious view that society holds for offences such as dangerous driving causing death is reflected by the increase in the maximum sentence for this offence from 5 to 10 years' imprisonment for convictions on indictment (which took place on 4 July 2009).

(4)  The court must therefore be astute to bear in mind the above considerations when determining the appropriate sentence in any given case in the face of details provided to it about an accused and the remorse that is shown. This is not to say that remorse or good character are not relevant considerations in terms of sentencing - they must be - but in the context of the offence with which we are concerned, they must not be given undue prominence. Further, nothing of course detracts from the discount that ought to be given when a timely plea of guilty is entered.”

15.本席整體的考慮霍先生的背景及本案情況，因為他的家庭背景而酌情扣減2個月的監禁，再因他審訊時態度務實，對事實無重大爭議而扣減監禁2個月，因此總刑期為監禁1年8個月。

其他

16.霍先生需要取消駕駛資格5年及自費地修讀及完成駕駛改進深課程，該課程要在取消駕駛資格期滿前3個月內完成。霍先生要修畢駕駛改進課程後，才能重獲駕駛資格。

總結

17.霍先生需要監禁1年8個月，取消駕駛資格5年及自費的修讀及完成駕駛改進課程，停牌令由判刑日起計算。