HKSAR v. Wong Wai Tak Bill

DCCC 887/2023

[2026] HKDC 717

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 887 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant was charged with one count of causing death by dangerous driving.  After trial, he was convicted of careless driving.

Facts

2.The facts and the evidence of this case have been set out in my Reasons for Verdict.  I am not going to repeat all the facts here. 

3.In summary, the incident took place at a pedestrian crossing when the defendant was making a right turn.  According to the evidence of one witness, the deceased Ms. Lau started to walk on the pedestrian crossing when the defendant’s car stopped at the red traffic light.  After about 20-30 seconds, the defendant slowly made a right turn into the junction.  It was my finding that the defendant did not look at the right side before he turned into the junction.  When the defendant did look at the pedestrian crossing, Ms. Lau was already very close to his car.  The defendant braked the car and did not have any collision with Ms. Lau.  It was my finding that Ms. Lau was startled by the car being so close to her such that she fell to the ground and sustained head injuries.  She subsequently died as a result of the head injuries.  I find the defendant drove carelessly without proper look out and attention and his act caused the death of Ms. Lau. 

Mitigation

4.The defendant is aged 65 and lives with his partner.  He joined the Royal Hong Kong Police in 1986 and retired in 2000.  Then he engaged in fast-food business in China.  In 2006, he worked as a Senior Litigation Officer in a law firm in Hong Kong.  In 2014, he joined the food industry again and worked as the Logistics in Charge.  He retired in 2024 when he received treatment for sigmoid colon cancer.  While his recovery from sigmoid colon cancer was uneventful, recent follow up revealed cystic neoplasm in the pancreatic head, which required regular follow-up.  He currently lives on his monthly pension income and Social Welfare subsidy.  He has a clear record.  He got his driving licence in 1981 and only has one fixed penalty record in 2022.

5.In mitigation, it was submitted that this case was the result of a series of events leading to an unfortunate outcome.  The defendant was willing to bear the consequence and the defence had written to the prosecution on two occasions to explore the possibility of amending the charge to careless driving but was rejected by the prosecution.  The defendant did regret for what he had done.  Given the circumstances of the case and the absence of dangerous nature of driving, it was submitted that custodial sentence was not required in this case.  This Court was urged to impose a lenient sentence on the defendant.

6.Before sentence, a Community Service Order suitability report was called for.  In the report, it was said that the defendant expressed genuine remorse for his careless driving.  Given his clear record, remorseful attitude and commitment to comply with the requirements of Community Service Order, the probation officer was of the view that it was worth giving the defendant a chance to reform in the community.  In view of the defendant’s age and current health condition, a Community Service Order of 80 hours was recommended.

7.In light of the recommendation in the report, this Court was urged to impose a Community Service Order on the defendant.

Sentence

8.The maximum sentence for the offence of careless driving is a fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for 6 months.

9.There is no sentencing tariff for this offence.  The predominant factor that determines the sentence is the defendant’s culpability in his manner of driving at the material time.  It is well established that the consequence of the driving is a relevant consideration in sentencing.

10.In HKSAR v Ma Kwong Tak CACC 217/2014, the Court of Appeal stated that in cases of serious careless driving, especially in cases where persons were killed in the accident, it was appropriate to sentence the driver to a short term of imprisonment so as to remind drivers to maintain their vigilance all the time in order to prevent the innocent from being harmed and also to redress the grievance and distress suffered by the family members of the deceased.

11.On the other hand, in HKSAR v Leung Chiu Yu [2012] 2 HKLRD 313, the Court of Appeal held that even if the offender’s careless driving had resulted in the death of another person, when the degree of carelessness was assessed to be “at a low rung of the ladder of culpability”, the suggestion of a sentence of imprisonment is not realistic despite the tragic result of the accident.

12.In the present case, there is no evidence of the defendant contravening any traffic regulations.  It was very likely that Ms. Lau was jaywalking at the material time.  When turning into a junction with pedestrian crossing, a driver is expected to be alert of any pedestrian coming out suddenly and to pay particular attention to that.  The defendant was found careless for his failure to pay attention to his right side before turning right.  Nevertheless, he was driving slowly such that he was able to stop his car without hitting Ms. Lau. I do not find this case to be a very bad case of careless driving.  Further, given the defendant’s clear record and the fact that he has been a prudent and careful driver for over 40 years with only one fixed penalty record, I consider non-custodial sentence would be an appropriate option in the present case. 

13.I have considered the content of the Community Service Order suitability report.  In view of the fact that the defendant has a clear record and a very good driving record, he is remorseful for what he had done, his manner of careless driving is at the lower end of the spectrum and his current health condition, I am prepared to adopt the recommendation of the probation officer.

14.In the circumstance, I consider the appropriate sentence is to sentence the defendant to a Community Service Order for 80 hours.