HKSAR v. Chan Yiu Ming

DCCC 610/2025

[2026] HKDC 805

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 610 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.Mr Chan pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving, contrary to section 36A of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374.

2.Particulars are that he, on 12 September 2024, near Lamppost No 38155, Siu Sai Wan Road, Siu Sai Wan, in Hong Kong, caused grievous bodily harm to Huang Huifen by driving a motor vehicle, namely, a light goods vehicle bearing registration mark R0CKY111, on a road dangerously.

Facts admitted by Mr Chan

3.On 12 September 2024 (“Offence Date”), at about 1809 hours, Mr Chan was driving a light goods vehicle R0CKY111 (“OV”)  along the 1^st lane of Siu Sai Wan Road (eastbound)  after passing a roundabout.

4.At the same time, Mdm Huang Huifen, aged 73 (PW1), was pushing a trolley full of folded cardboard boxes and tin cans (“the Trolley”)  while walking in the opposite direction in front of OV on the same lane (“Offence Location”)  overstepping a pedestrian crossing.  OV’s nearside front hit the Trolley which in turn hit PW1, causing her to fall to the ground.

5.At the time of the incident, the weather was fine, providing good visibility.  The traffic volume was moderate.

6.At about 1820 hours, SPC 33246 (PW2)  attended the scene.  PW2 conducted preliminary investigation with Mr Chan who said that he was driving OV along Siu Sai Wan Road (eastbound)  at about 20-30 km/h; that he only saw the Trolley but not PW1.

7.PW1 was conveyed to Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital (PYNEH)  in a conscious state.

8.SPC 4923 (PW3)  cautioned Mr Chan at the scene.  Mr Chan said he was driving at a speed of about 20-30 km/h.  Mr Chan further stated he was focused on the road ahead and had an unobstructed view, but he could not see PW1.  Mr Chan provided PW3 with the dash cam footage from OV for investigation.

9.The dash cam from OV captured that there was no obstruction between Mr Chan and the Trolley that could have blocked Mr Chan’s view at the material time. In addition, it shows, inter alia, that :-

 

Timestamp	Incident	OV’s Speed Shown on the Dash cam Recording
18:09:21	OV was travelling eastbound along Siu Sai Wan Road and preparing to enter the roundabout. The Trolley was located in the 1st lane of Siu Sai Wan Road (eastbound)  near the exit of the roundabout, but a pile of tin cans and cardboard was stacked higher than PW1. PW1 was walking westward along the 1st lane of Siu Sai Wan Road (eastbound), on a pedestrian crossing (with the pavement on her right). A male was standing on the pavement near PW1 at the pedestrian crossing.	32 km/h
18:09:22	OV did not decelerate when it passed the “Give Way” sign and road markings and proceeded into the roundabout, while PW1 continued walking in the opposite direction along the same road. The said male was still standing at the same position.	37 km/h
18:09:23	OV was getting ready to enter the 1st lane of Siu Sai Wan Road (eastbound). The Trolley was clearly visible as it approached OV on the nearside. The said male stood still at the same position.	42 km/h
18:09:24	OV did not reduce speed and entered the 1st lane of Siu Sai Wan Road (eastbound). PW1 was clearly visible on the nearside of Mr Chan, pushing the Trolley and positioned very close to the pavement, while the said male was standing still, facing PW1’s direction.	42 km/h
18:09:25	OV increased its speed by 2km/h (as indicated in the dash cam recording)  and collided with the Trolley which then hit PW1. Mr Chan did not swerve OV to the right to avoid the impact.	44 km/h
18:09:28	OV appeared to be coming to a stop.	km/h

10.On 6 November 2024, PW3 obtained another cautioned statement from Mr Chan, in which Mr Chan stated, inter alia, that :-

(i)  There was sufficient sunlight at the time of the incident.

(ii)  OV had no mechanical defects.

(iii)  He was travelling at around 30-40 km/h.

(iv)  Before exiting the roundabout, he first checked for any vehicles coming from Fu Hong Street (southbound)  on his left. He then looked to his right at Siu Sai Wan Road (westbound). Since there were no vehicles approaching from either road, he drove out of the roundabout and onto Siu Sai Wan Road (eastbound). When he refocused on the road ahead, he saw that PW1 and the Trolley were only about 0.5 meters away from the nearside of OV. He immediately swerved to the right but still collided with PW1.

(v)  He saw an individual waiting to cross at the pedestrian crossing but did not see PW1 pushing the Trolley on the road.

11.The Government Chemist, Dr So Man Ho (PW4), assessed the speed of the OV using the dash cam footage from OV and estimated that there was a gradual increase in the estimated average speed of OV from 42 km/h to 44 km/h between 18:09:20 and 18:09:25.

12.The medical report issued by the Department of Accident & Emergency of PYNEH indicates that the provisional diagnosis for PW1 was an acute traumatic closed fracture of right femur and tibia shaft due to traffic accident. The medical examination conducted on PW1 revealed, inter alia, the following:-

(i)  She had right hip pain and swelling.

(ii)  She had right ankle open wound with pain, swelling, and bleeding.

(iii)  She had left shoulder pain and bruising.

(iv)  She had right lower lateral chest wall pain.

(v)  X-rays found subtrochanteric fracture over right hip and right distal tibia fracture.

13.PW1 was given intravenous fluid, analgesics, anti-tetanus vaccine, and neck collar for treatment at the Department of Accident & Emergency of PYNEH.

14.The medical report issued by the Department of Neurosurgery of PYNEH shows, inter alia, that PW1 had a left frontal abrasion. Computed tomography of the brain showed a 1.2 cm acute subarachnoid hemorrhage at right temporoparietal region. PW1 was admitted under Orthopaedics for further management of her polytrauma. The neurosurgical diagnosis was head injury with acute subarachnoid hemorrhage. On 28 October 2024, during PW1’s in-patient stay, she was noted to have occasional mild headache and dizziness.

15.The medical report issued by the Department of Orthopaedics & Traumatology of PYNEH indicates that PW1 had multiple orthopaedics injuries including: (i)  right tibia + distal fibula open fracture; (ii)  right femur subtrochanteric fracture; (iii)  left scapula body fracture; and (iv)  C4 cervical spine fracture + T4 thoracic spine fracture. In addition:-

(i)  On the Offence Date, closed reduction and fixation with proximal femoral nail was done for the right subtrochanteric femur fracture as well as application of external fixation device for the right tibia and fibula open fracture.

(ii)  Computer tomography of the right leg was done on 28 October 2024 showing callus formation, and healing fracture, and the external fixator was ultimately removed on 31 October 2024.

(iii)  Suboptimal bone union of the right femur subtrochanteric fracture was noted and operation for dynamization was done on 14 November 2024.

(iv)  The left scapula body fracture was treated conservatively with a shoulder immobilizer for 6 weeks total until 24 October 2024.

(v)  In view of no neurological deficits, the C4 and T4 fractures were also treated conservatively with rigid neck collar and a thoracolumbar orthosis.

(vi)  CT of the spine was done on 28 October 2024 showing maintained alignment.

(vii)  PW1 was transferred to Tung Wah East Hospital on 19 November 2024 for further rehabilitation and partial weight bearing walking exercises.

16.Mr Chan now admits that, on the Offence Date, he caused grievous bodily harm to PW1 by driving OV dangerously at the Offence Location; that he completely failed to keep a proper lookout on the road, resulting in the collision with the Trolley which then hit PW1, who was on the same carriageway with the OV, facing Mr Chan as she approached; that PW1 was at the material time on the pedestrian crossing.  Mr Chan admits that the way he drove fell far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

Criminal and Road Traffic convictions records

17.Mr Chan has 6 previous criminal convictions all recorded in August 2013 which included drink driving and careless driving.

18.Mr Chan has 2 previous road traffic conviction records one of which was for driving in excess of speed limit by more than 45 km/h (recorded in May 2015); and the other of which was for careless driving (recorded in August 2015).

Antecedents

19.Mr Chan is aged 39 (37 at the time of the offence), educated to secondary 3 level.  He was employed as goods vehicle driver at the time of the offence.  Since the offence, beginning in 2025, he has been employed as a construction worker.  Mr Chan is married and has a son (4).  He is living with his family and his mother (60)  in public housing.

Mitigation

20.Mr Billy Yau of counsel mitigated on behalf of Mr Chan.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

21.Mr Chan’s father (61)  is retired while his mother (60)  is a housewife. Mr Chan maintained a close relationship with his parents to whom he is the primary caregiver.

22.Mr Chan’s son (4)  is studying in K2.  Mr Chan’s wife (32)  was previously a housewife, but she started to work in a restaurant after the current incident, in preparation for Mr Chan’s conviction of the offence.

23.Mr Chan’s wife and work colleagues are in court to give him support.

24.Mr Chan is a seasoned driver: he was qualified to drive at the age of 18.  He has previously worked as a chauffeur.  At the material time, he was working as a delivery driver for a ramen restaurant, earning $18,000 a month. After the current incident, he was dismissed.  He is now working as a construction site worker, earning $26,000 per month.

25.His 6 previous criminal convictions were all driving-related.  There were also two road traffic conviction records.  It was submitted that given that Mr Chan had been a professional driver for some time, the records were not the worst kind compared to other cases.

26.Mr Chan worked till 11 pm the previous night because the family was placed under significant financial strain by his son’s recent birth.  Mr Chan sometimes engaged in supplementary employment outside of his regular occupation.  Mr Chan had also to wake up midnight to feed the baby.

27.On the day of the incident, Mr Chan started his work at 10 am at Quarry Bay.  At the material time, Mr Chan was about to return to the warehouse and park his vehicle there.  Mr Chan was very tired after a whole day’s driving.

28.Mr Chan simply failed to notice the presence of the victim prior to the impact, which he should have been able to do.  It was never his intention to take the risk of bumping the victim or the Trolley by accelerating.

29.There were several factors that may have caused Mr Chan to overlook the presence of the victim:-

(a)  When Mr Chan was entering the roundabout, he had to check the incoming traffic on his right as well as his left for incoming traffic. The presence of the victim or the Trolley may not be immediately apparent to Mr Chan; and

(b)  The presence of other pedestrians on the road, including those who were jaywalking near the roundabout as well as the pedestrian who was standing on the roadside waiting to cross the road at the pedestrian crossing, could have diverted the attention of Mr Chan at the material time, causing delay in observing the presence of the victim.

30.In Secretary for Justice v Chu Wing Yin Christine [2020] 1 HKLRD 771, principles were laid down for the sentencing of dangerous driving offences:-

“78. First, the dominant factor to be considered is the offender’s culpability which will involve two related assessments: (1)  the objective dangerousness of the offender’s driving (see [48]–[50] of the judgment of Macrae V-P); and (2)  the moral culpability of the offender (see [51] and [52] of the judgment of Macrae V-P).

79. Secondly, closely allied to culpability is the harm and impact caused to the victim(s)  (see [56] of the judgment of Macrae V-P). This will involve an assessment of the nature and degree of the really serious injury to the victim or victims.

80. Aggravating factors may include: (i)  the extent and nature of the injuries inflicted; (ii)  the number of people put a risk; (iii)  the degree of speed; (iv)  the extent of intoxication or of substance abuse (see s.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);[1] and (xiii)  whether the offender was driving a public service vehicle (see HKSAR v Man Chun Pun).[2]

81. Thirdly, the normal sentence for this type of offence is an immediate custodial sentence. The length of the sentence will be determined by an assessment of the two factors of culpability and harm, bearing in mind that the maximum sentence for the offence is 7 years’ imprisonment on indictment. Only in exceptional circumstances would other sentencing options be available and this will be dependent upon the circumstances of the offence and of the offender.

82. Fourthly, the sentencing court will evaluate any mitigating factors with an appropriate adjustment to the sentence.

83. Fifthly, the sentencing court must consider the imposition of any other consequential orders, such as disqualification from driving, the completion of a driving improvement course and compensation.”

31.In HKSAR v Kwan Wan Ki [2020] 5 HKLRD 433, approving the principle in Christine Chu, the Court of Appeal further held that:-

“31. For any deliberate and prolonged acts of dangerous driving that pose definitely foreseeable threats to other road users, especially when they result in serious casualties, the courts must take a serious view and impose sentences with sufficient deterrent effect. Otherwise, the relatives and friends of the victims will view that as justice not having been done, and such sentences will not be able to soothe the distress and pain caused to them by the incidents, nor will they be accepted by the public. On the other hand, if an act of dangerous driving was caused by a misjudgment or momentary inattention, and the consequences of the accident are not serious, the court may impose a more lenient sentence on the defendant.”

32.A table of authorities analyzing the sentencing decisions (all post-Christine Chu)  of the charge was submitted.  As could be seen, sentences ranging from suspended sentence, community service order[3] and immediate imprisonment have been previously imposed in relation to the present charge.

33.It was submitted that, apart from the fact that Mr Chan has failed to notice the presence of the victim prior to impact, there were no other dangerous driving behaviours demonstrated by Mr Chan.  It was further submitted that the severity of the case should therefore be classified at the lower end of the scale, based on the following factors:-

(a)  The speed of the vehicle was well below the speed limit prior to impact;

(b)  Whilst the incident location was a pedestrian crossing, the victim was jaywalking against the direction of traffic. It was submitted that a driver would expect pedestrians not to risk their lives by jaywalking at the material location. This, it was submitted, in turn renders Mr Chan less morally culpable[4];

(c)  Mr Chan was not driving under the influence of alcohol;

(d)  According to Mr Chan’s VRI, his attention was diverted by the traffic on his right as well as the pedestrians who were jaywalking. The victim’s presence was not apparent to him. This supports the position that Mr Chan committed the offence not because he deliberately risked driving too close to the victim, but because a momentary lapse in attention prevented him from noticing the victim’s presence ahead of impact. It was however not disputed that Mr Chan’s act was dangerous as he should have been able to see the victim two seconds before impact;

(e)  There is no evidence to suggest that Mr Chan’s attention was diverted by other culpable factors such as the use of mobile phone; and

(f)  Mr Chan immediately alighted the vehicle and made a report to the police.

34.Mr Chan is extremely remorseful for having inflicted injuries on the victim.

35.Mr Yau asked the court to obtain a CSO suitability report before sentencing.

36.Mr Yau submitted on behalf of Mr Chan three mitigation letters written in Chinese respectively by Mr Chan himself, his wife, and his present employer.  The contents generally are that Mr Chan is regretful for the grave harm done to the victim; that he is the sole breadwinner of the family; that he is a hardworking and responsible employee.  The letter writers asked for a chance and a lenient sentence for Mr Chan so he may continue to take care of his family.

37.Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Yau replied that he had no submissions to make on special reasons not to impose disqualification order etc.

Sentence

38.Prosecution submitted an album of 9 photos showing the scene.

39.Prosecution played in court the dashcam footage of the OV depicting how Mr Chan entered the roundabout.

40.Mr Yau asked for a CSO suitability report.  The reality is the injuries are far too serious for a CSO to be awarded as punishment.  In this connection, I bear in mind what was said in para 31 of Kwan Wan Ki (supra).

41.Immediate term of imprisonment is the only sentencing option under the circumstances.

42.I do not agree that Mr Chan has a good driving record: his previous convictions included drink driving, careless driving and driving in excess of speed limit by 45 km/h.

43.The culpability of Mr Chan’s driving lies in driving too close to the goods trolley which involved a serious error of judgement though momentary in time.  It is clear that Mr Chan was affected by insufficient sleep and long hours of work.

44.I took into account the aggravating factors of sleep deprivation and the offence location being a pedestrian crossing.  On the other hand, I cannot ignore the fact that the victim herself could be said to be jaywalking by pushing her goods trolley against the traffic at the material location.

45.All things considered, I adopt 9 months’ imprisonment as the starting point.

46.Mr Chan pleaded guilty in good time earning for himself the full 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction.

47.Disqualification for at least 2 years and attendance and completion of a driving improving course are mandatory upon conviction of this offence unless special reasons exist.  There are none here.  I will therefore make the orders accordingly.

(Mr Chan, please stand)

48.Mr Chan will go to prison for 6 months.

49.In addition, I order that Mr Chan be disqualified from holding and obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicle for a period of 2 years.

50.I further order Mr Chan to attend and complete at his own cost a driving improvement course within the last 3 months of the disqualification period.

51.Mr Chan is not to drive until he has (a)  served the disqualification period and (b)  attended and completed the driving improvement course as per the order.

52.I hereby warn Mr Chan that failure to attend and complete the driving improvement course as per the order is itself an offence and may attract an imprisonment sentence upon conviction.