HKSAR v. Tang Mei Ling, Wendy

DCCC 738/2025

[2026] HKDC 1794

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 738 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving after trial.

2.The facts of the case could be summarized in the following paragraphs.

3.The traffic accident happened on a weekday afternoon and the weather was fine, sunny and the road was dry, visibility was not an issue.

4.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.

5.With much sadness, this case involved another traffic accident that claimed the life of an elderly man in his sixties, he was deprived of the precious time he could have spent with his friends and family, the chance to live to see another sunset, but having died an unexpected and sudden death.

6.I found the way the defendant drove was dangerous, but I agreed with counsel that her culpability is at the lower end of the scale.

7.As I have found in the reasons for verdict, she was not speeding, jumping the red light or anything that might be considered as aggravating factor, the only thing she did wrong or did not do was to pay attention to the road ahead, not momentary lapse of attention or an error of judgement, she had the road ahead of her and her view was obstructed to a large extent when making a right turn. (As to other scenarios such as she saw the deceased and nonetheless drove on, or she had an unobstructed view ahead but still failed to see the deceased due to whatever reason that might be, in term of sentencing, if the evidence points to various inferences, the one with the lowest culpability should be adopted in determining sentence.)

8.The defendant is now 30 years of age, single. She runs a flower shop with her mother. And I am told her absence might greatly affect her business.

9.A background report has been called for and is now before me and I do not intent to repeat those as I do not think it will affect the sentence that I am going to impose.

10.I find none of her personal background amount to any real mitigating factor, although she has previous conviction records with one related to careless driving but none similar. She managed to live a decent life after she was in trouble with the law since 2017.

11.Having considered her culpability in the present offence , all matters put forward in her plea in mitigation and that she has no similar record, heavy prison sentence is not warranted for. I will adopt a starting point of 12 months and I see no reason to further reduce it, therefore she is sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.

12.As to disqualification and driving improvement course, no submission has been advanced by the defence, I will adopt the minimum period as required by law, which is 5 years. That said, the defendant is warned not to apply for any type of driving license nor to drive any type of vehicle during the disqualification period, otherwise, she will be looking at prison sentence. As to driving improvement course, she is ordered to attend and complete, at her own cost, a driving improvement course within the last 3 months of the expiration of the period of her disqualification, otherwise she might be prosecuted for not doing so or unable to get her license back.