HKSAR v. Tang Mei Ling, Wendy
|
DCCC 738/2025 [2026] HKDC 1632 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 738 OF 2025 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR VERDICT ________________________ 1.The defendant pleads not guilty to causing death by dangerous driving, but is prepared to plead guilty to a lesser charge of careless driving which is not accepted by the prosecution. The Prosecution’s case 2.The traffic accident happened on a weekday afternoon and the weather was fine, sunny and the road was dry, visibility was not an issue. 3.The incident took place near a gas station in Sai Wan Ho. The defendant was driving her light goods vehicle (“the Van”) along Tai Hong Street and slowed down to nearly a halt when the traffic light was red, when the light turned amber to green again, she continued to drive forward, when she made a right turn into Hong Cheung Street and the light already turned green, when making the right turn and upon crossing the pedestrian crossing, the deceased was making his way to the gas station from the other side, at this very juncture the deceased was hit and ran over by the defendant’s Van. Ambulance and police were summoned to the scene. Unfortunately, the deceased was killed as a result of the accident. Prosecution witnesses’ evidence in gist 4.Two witnesses were called to testify at trial, the police officer who attended the scene after the accident, and an expert who performed a reconstruction of the accident and an expert report was compiled and tendered into evidence by way of admitted facts. PW1 – PC 19635 5.He attended the scene after the accident and carried out investigation, he also took photos and drew sketches at the scene as well. He made enquires with the defendant and the eyewitness, he also checked on the deceased inside the ambulance. 6.In gist, the defendant replied to the officer that she was preoccupied with looking at the traffic light signal while making the right turn, she did not notice someone was crossing the street. The prosecution had relied on the oral admission made by the defendant which I had ruled inadmissible at trial, I will deal with this issue below. PW2 – Dr Wong 7.The prosecutor had in her written submissions succinctly summarized the evidence of PW2, I will quote the relevant paragraphs in whole: -
The Expert report 8.For easy reference, the 2 charts below summarized and put in words both footages of the car camera and the reconstruction of the accident as observed by the expert through various view points. Chart 1: Car Camera
Chart 2: Reconstruction of the accident
Analysis of the evidence 9.I bear in mind the burden of proof is on the prosecution throughout, the fact that the defendant has a clear record, good character directions apply. The defendant elected not to testify nor call any witness, that was her right, no adverse inference would be drawn against her. 10.I accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses (except the oral admission) and place full weight on the evidence of the expert. The oral admission 11.As to the alleged oral admission made by the defendant, the issue was resolved by way of alternative procedure, having ruled there was a prima facie case, the defendant elected not to testify nor call any witness. 12.When attending the scene for the purpose of carrying out an investigation, the officer had said in his evidence that he was aware the driver was the defendant and he approached the defendant and made enquires with her. 13.The only compliant by the defence is that no caution was administered and it was unfair to the defendant and plainly in violation of her right of silence therefore rendering it inadmissible. 14.The prosecution argues that the officer was making preliminary enquiries, no caution was required. 15.I am with the defence in this regard. The officer knew who the driver was, and he was aware an accident had happened which resulted in a person being injured, what more he had to know before he had reasonable ground to suspect an offence might have been committed? It was not the case that he needed to find out who the driver was or whether anyone had sustained injuries and he needed to make the necessary enquires before he could proceed any further. 16.The officer in my view should have administered caution before putting questions to the defendant, since it was in violation of her right of silence, I would exercise my discretion to exclude the replies made by the defendant from the evidence. The accident 17.It is no doubt a tragic accident happened that claimed the life of the victim, however should the defendant be held liable? 18.The standard of proving dangerous driving is a high one, the law in this regard in not in dispute. 19.No issue was taken how the accident took place nor the way the defendant was driving at the material time. 20.The defence submits that this case was at most a careless driving case if there is any conviction at all, the defendant had failed to keep a proper lookout when turning the corner with a restricted view of the road ahead. 21.It could be seen from the footage captured by the car camera how the deceased was run over by the Van driven by the defendant. 22.It is contended that, even the expert evidence shows (from the driver’s seat view point) that the defendant would have had a restricted view of the deceased on the pedestrian crossing, and there was little opportunity for her to have seen the deceased in the 4 seconds preceding the collision. Besides, the defendant would only have a split-second reaction time. 23.At the outset, it would appear the defence has a valid point, however if one takes a closer look at the footage, one would come to a different conclusion. 24.To begin with, neither the footage from the dashcam nor the reconstruction could accurately demonstrate the actual view point the defendant had on the day of the accident, common sense dictates that a slight turn of her head or a slight shift of her body to either side could make a big difference in what she might have seen of the road ahead. 25.As to the footage of the reconstruction, it shows in the upright driving posture the defendant’s view would have been obstructed by the structural column the whole time. 26.If one takes a look at another view point where the expert leaned his body to the nearside, he could have seen the deceased at T-4, T-3, T-2 (the tip of the deceased’s head), T-1.5 and T-1. 27.Another view point observed was when the expert turned his head towards the offside, the view of the deceased was obstructed by the structural column at T-3, at T-2 with a very limited view of the deceased’s foot before collision, and at T-1.5 and T-1, both were obstructed by the structural column. 28.Lastly, the footage of the dashcam displays an unobstructed view of the deceased taken at the time of the accident. For the avoidance of doubt, that shouldn’t be presumed that was what the defendant might have seen at the material time. 29.Having viewed and considered the footages at various view points, I have the following observations. 30.I am aware the actual view point of the defendant throughout the incident could not be ascertained. 31.However, assuming the road ahead was obstructed by the structural column, petrol station or even pedestrians, one would assume anyone driving under that condition would have slowed down or even stopped the car, tried to look at an unobstructed view point of the road ahead until one was sure of what lay ahead before continuing to drive forward or make a right turn. 32.If that was the case, being partially obstructed and without knowing what lay ahead and still chose to drive forward, the only irresistible inference must be that the defendant simply ignored the risk of somebody might be ahead and still drove forward, that in my view the way the defendant drove was far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. 33.Assuming her view was unobstructed, needless to say if the defendant still chose to drive forward, she either did not pay attention to the road ahead or she noticed there was a pedestrian crossing the road but still chose to drive forward ignoring the risk to colliding with the pedestrian, that in my view, the way the defendant drove was far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. 34.Finally, as I have mentioned earlier, what might have been the actual view point of the defendant could not be ascertained, that could vary at different intervals, even bear that in mind, what inferences could be drawn? 35.If one looks at the footage again, the obstructions that were referred to, apart from the pedestrians before the defendant made a right turn, the rest were the structural column (from T-3 onward). The importance is this, the structural column in effect obstructed at least one-fourth to one-third of the pedestrian crossing’s view, and at times even more. With that in mind, it matters not at what interval the defendant’s view might have been obstructed, be it T-1 T-2 or at any other time, individually or collectively, would a competent and prudent driver ignore what might have been in front of him or her, in particular on a pedestrian crossing, even if the traffic light was in his or her favor, people do sometimes cross the road regardless. 36.That said, despite the fact that the defendant’s view might have been obstructed at various unknown intervals or at all, the defendant should have made certain the road ahead was clear before continuing to drive forward, the only inference is that the defendant either ignored the risk of somebody might be ahead and still drove forward or she noticed someone was in front, and still chose to drive ahead, again in my view, the way the defendant drove was far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. 37.Defence submits, the deceased was hidden by a shadow or walking from a shadow, and it was not easy to see the deceased. First of all, no evidence from the defendant suggested that the deceased was hidden from the shadow or hard to spot. Even with the shadow, the deceased could still be quite easily seen from the footages, this submission must fail. 38.Having considered the possible view points the defendant might have before the accident as discussed above, all come to the same conclusion that the way the defendant drove was far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver 39.I am well aware of the fact that there was no speeding, no jumping red light or in violation of any traffic signs or signals, nor the defendant was driving under the influence of drugs or drink, with these matters that are in the defendant’s favor and taken into account, that would not change the conclusion that I have reached. 40.Having confirmed with the defence, no issue was taken as to the death of the deceased was the direct result of the accident. 41.In any event, as submitted by the prosecution, the deceased was certified dead about 8 hours after the incident, the direct cause of death was intracranial haemorrhage, which was commensurate with the fact that he was hit by the LGV and his injuries after the accident. I find the cause of death was the direct result of the accident. 42.I find the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of the offence, the defendant is therefore convicted as charged.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error
Further hearings and rulings under DCCC 738/2025