HKSAR v. Ho Kwok Sang

DCCC 1547/2025

[2026] HKDC 976

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1547 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a total of 6 charges on this indictment.  The 1^st charge relates to the defendant’s driving of a vehicle by which he caused grievous bodily harm to a person by dangerous driving, that is contrary to Section 36A of the Road Traffic Ordinance.

2.The following 5 charges relate to the driving of the vehicle, failing to report the accident and the defendant’s status as an unlicensed driver.  The 2^nd  charge, therefore, is failing to stop after the accident; the 3^rd charge, failing to report the accident when it occurred; the 4^th charge related to driving without a valid driving licence; the 5^th charge, driving a vehicle that was unlicensed and the 6^th charge, using that vehicle without third party insurance.

3.All these charges relate from an accident that occurred outside the Light Rail Transit Station at Yuen Long, New Territories and this occurred on the evening of 27 October 2024.  PW1 was accessing a pedestrian crossing to walk across Castle Peak Road in the vicinity of the Light Rail Transit Station. At the time that she accessed that crossing, the pedestrian was green and the vehicular signal was red.  At that time, the defendant was driving a private car which was approaching the crossing.  He ran through the red light, swerved to the right at the last moment and thereby collided with PW1.  It is also apparent that two other pedestrians barely escaped being struck by the vehicle the defendant was driving at the same time.

4.Following the collision, the defendant stopped for one to two seconds in his vehicle, lowered the driver’s window to check on the pedestrians he had just collided with and then shortly after drove away. 

5.The victim in the 1^st charge, PW1 was severely injured and the description of her injuries can be found in the Brief Facts.  She appeared to be in a coma on her arrival to the hospital. She represented a Glasgow Coma Scale of 10/15 on arrival at the hospital.  She had right periorbital swelling and bruising.  She had laceration wounds over her scalp and forehead.  She had acute epidural hematoma with midline shift and subfalcine herniation.  She also had internal hypodensity which suggested hyperacute component.  There were complex right facial fractures, right parietal, zygomatic, sphenoid bone, orbital floor complicated with hemosinuses and pneumocephalus.  There was a soft tissue hematoma, that is a bruise, at the right periorbital region with subcutaneous emphysema and she had a right mid-third clavicle fracture, that is basically a shoulder fracture.  Because of the severity of injuries, she was admitted to an Intensive Care Unit and seen to by a Trauma Team.  She was managed by a surgeons and underwent an emergency craniotomy, presumably to relieve pressure on the brain. 

6.She was seen by an Anaesthesiologist and Intensive Care Unit doctor who gave the following opinion on the 8 November 2024.  She was transferred to a rehabilitation block on that day for neuro rehabilitation and at that time, she was seen to suffer from the following impairments:  Her neuro behaviour cognitive status exam showed impairment in naming mild to moderate.  She had a right clavicle fracture, a decreased right upper limb power due to that fracture and dizziness upon postural changes and repeating imaging showing resolving right epidural collection.  However, by 10 December 2024, it was found that the victim, PW1, could walk unaided independently with good stability and her activities of daily living were independent on the Barthel Index scale of 99. 

7.I have no further information about the injuries suffered by PW1 but it would appear that within a fairly short period, by December 2024, she had made what would appear to be and almost complete recovery, which is remarkable.

8.The police investigated the matter shortly after.  On 28 October 2024, they found a damaged car which was identified as the car that had been used in the collision.  That car was related to the defendant.  The defendant was eventually listed as a wanted person and was found on 11 March 2025.  It was also found that the defendant only had a learner’s licence which had expired on 21 August 2008 and it was also found that a disqualification order been imposed on the defendant on 13 October 2023 for 18 months.  There are further disqualifications beyond those set out in the Admitted Facts.

9.A record of interview was conducted with the defendant.  He said he had twice attempted driving tests in 2005 and 2019 and failed.   He had not attempted a driving test since then.  He knew that the car he was driving was unregistered and not covered by third party insurance at the time of the accident on 27 October 2025.  He confirmed that the road condition was dry and the road was in good repair.  There was sufficient illumination and the visibility was good.

10.The defendant said he saw an amber light vehicular signal and mistakenly thought it would turn green but the amber light turned red instead.  A female pedestrian crossed the road, he swerved to the right but collided with the victim in any event.  He did see the victim lying on the ground but left without alighting the vehicle and did not report the accident either.

11.Those are the facts on which the charge is based, they clearly showed the defendant guilty of dangerous driving and the other offences to which he has pleaded guilty.  I note from the facts that have been set out, this could be described as a momentary serious failure of judgement by the defendant, the failure to perceive the signal in front of him and continuing to drive and the failure to perceive the pedestrians who were on the crossing.  However, the outcome of the accident was very serious for PW1 and that has to be taken into account when looking at the severity of this case. Fortunately, as I have indicated earlier, the victim has on the face of it recovered completely. 

12.The antecedents show the defendant is currently aged 44.  He has a criminal record which a total of 25 appearances in court and 36 convictions.  Now dealing with those, the defendant has received a number of convictions for theft which led to him being incarcerated in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.  He has also committed offences of possession of a dangerous drug. 

13.As far as the defendant’s driving a vehicle is concerned, there appears to be 3 separate sets of offences.  In 2022, the defendant was convicted of a number of offences relating to a vehicle, namely possession of a forged vehicle driving document, using a motor vehicle on a road without third part risks, driving without a licence and driving an unlicensed vehicle.  The defendant was fined and received a short prison sentence in relation to those.

14.In 2023, there were another series of similar offences, such as driving without a licence, using a document with intent to deceive, driving without third party insurance risk, failing to stop and failing to report an accident.  Again, short prison sentences and disqualification from driving was imposed.

15.In 2025, defendant was again convicted driving whilst disqualified and using a motor vehicle on a road against third party risks, receiving sentences of imprisonment from the court on that occasion and disqualification from driving.

16.And then finally in 2026 on 24 February 2026, being convicted of permitting another person to use a motor vehicle on a road against third party risks and permitting driving of an unlicensed vehicle, receiving a sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment and 2 months’ imprisonment respectively and a further disqualification from driving of 18 months.

17.I turn now to the mitigation advanced by the defendant.  Firstly, the defendant pleads in mitigation his pleas of guilty to all these charges and the remorse been shown by that.  The defendant is 44 years old, he is single.  He has been arrested on 11 March 2025 and has been detained since that date, which means a total of 14 months so far.  It is said the defendant’s biggest mitigating factor is plea of guilty at the first available opportunity.  The defendant accepts full responsibility for the accident and the injury suffered by PW1 and feels remorse for that. 

18.The mitigation factors that the defence put forward of there is no evidence the defendant drove in excess of the speed limit.  The defendant did attempt to brake and swerve to avoid colliding with PW1 and the defendant’s jumping of a red light was a mistaken or a lapse of judgement.  Although a serious lapse of judgement, it still falls into this category and that is the explanation offered by the defendant in his record of interview on 10 April 2025.

19.Defence also points to the fact that the PW1 has fully recovered with no evident residual pain or tenderness and regained a full active range of movements in her right shoulder. 

20.The defence acknowledges the defendant does not have what is described as a good driving record, although the defendant’s earlier convictions appear to relate to his driving status rather than his driving capacity.

21.The defendant has also put forward letters of mitigation from his younger sister and his mother which I have considered. 

22.Defence also refers to the case of HKSAR v Lee Yau Wing [2013] 1 HKC, where the court dealt with the case of an appellant running through a red light on a pedestrian crossing which was of course dangerous driving where the court upheld a starting point of some 15 months as appropriate in that situation.

23.Now turning to the court’s approach to sentencing on the 1^st charge, there is no guideline sentence for this offence because the facts of these offences can range very widely. However, the maximum sentence is one of 7 years’ imprisonment and sentences of imprisonment which range between a starting point of 12 months and 36 months are imposed for this offence.

24.The 2 factors that the court will take into account are firstly, the culpability of the defendant, and secondly, the outcome of the accident and I have already set out those factors.  Firstly, the culpability of the defendant is in the category of a momentary severe error of judgement and the consequences initially were very serious but fortunately have been mitigated by the course of time.

25.I consider in respect of the 1^st charge, an appropriate starting point to sentence having regard to both those factors will be one of 21 months’ imprisonment which I will reduce to 14 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty. 

26.The defendant should also and must also be subject to a mandatory disqualification.  The court of course can impose any length of disqualification and I will exceed the mandatory disqualification by ordering a disqualification of 4 years in this case, having regard to the defendant’s poor record in relation to maintaining his status as a legal driver.  I shall order 4-year disqualification on this charge and the defendant must as a mandatory matter take and complete a driving improvement course within 3 months of the expiry of that period of disqualification.

27.As far as the 2^nd charge is concerned, that is failing to stop, I will take a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 4 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty. 

28.On the 3^rd charge of failing to report the accident, I will take a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 2 months’ imprisonment for defendant’s plea of guilty.

29.On the 4^th charge of driving without a valid driving licence, I will take a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment, reduce that to 2 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty. 

30.On the 5^th charge of driving an unlicensed vehicle, I will take a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment, reduce that to 2 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.

31.On the 6^th charge, which is driving without third party insurance, I will take a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment, reduce that to 4 months’ imprisonment for defendant’s plea of guilty.  There will also be a 2-year disqualification from driving on that charge.

32.The disqualification for driving that I have imposed, as they imposed at the same time in this court will operate concurrently. 

33.I will also order that having regard to the overall totality, all periods of imprisonment will operate concurrently, leading to an overall total of 14 months’ imprisonment.