Attorney General v. Kwok Ka-tak
Read the full judgment text of CAAR 5/1978 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The respondent was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving contrary to sections 11(2) and (3) of the Road Traffic Ordinance. He was sentenced to a fine of one thousand dollars.
|
CAAR000005/1978
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A. Date of Judgment: 29th May, 1978. ----------------- DECISION ----------------- 1. The respondent was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving contrary to sections 11(2) and (3) of the Road Traffic Ordinance. He was sentenced to a fine of one thousand dollars. 2. The respondent was driving his car at 2020 hours on 11th March, 1978 on Victoria Park Road. He was travelling eastwards. The respondent collided with a man named WONG Woon-muk and killed him. Wong Woon-muk was a beggar and he had no right to be on that road which is a clearway. He was killed outright. 3. Soon after the accident the police arrived at the scene and a sketch map was made which was exhibited to the court. This shows brake marks of the car of the respondent, nearly a hundred meters long. The car was powerful and had been modified to enable it to travel at high speeds. It had also been fitted with large wide tyres for this purpose. In addition, it had a special braking system enabling greater pressure to be used. 4. From the evidence of the sketch map a Motor Vehicle Examiner from the Transport Department calculated that the speed of the car would have been about 95 miles per hour. The respondent did not give evidence nor did he call witnesses though there were two passengers in his car at the time. 5. In his findings, the magistrate did not accept the figure of 95 m.p.h., principally because the accident occurred quite close to a traffic light where there is a road junction. To travel at 95 miles per hour on that particular part of the road would be, he thought, near suicidal. 6. There is no doubt that the respondent was travelling very fast indeed. It may be that he was intending to rely on the special braking system of his car. There was no evidence given as to how quickly the car could be brought to a stop when travelling at a high speed. It is true that the respondent would not expect to encounter a pedestrian crossing the road at that point. Yet the fact remains that he caused the death of the pedestrian through his excessive and dangerous speed. 7. The respondent is 27 years old and is a motor vehicle salesman in a firm which deals in second-hand cars. He has had two previous convictions for careless driving. 8. In my view, this is a case where a period of disqualification should be imposed. This application must be allowed and the respondent, in addition to the fine of $1,000 already imposed, is disqualified from obtaining and holding a licence for a period of twelve months. The disqualification will apply to all vehicles.
Representation: Lucas for the Crown/Appellant Cheng Huan (K.Y. Woo & Co.) for Respondent
----------------- Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins and Pickering, JJ.A. Date of Judgment: 29th May 1978. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins, J.A.: 9. The difficulty with which we have been faced is that the learned magistrate has made no finding as to the speed at which the Respondent was driving, although he said that the offence "was basically one of fast driving on an open road at night". His only conclusion was the negative one that he was not prepared to accept the evidence of the skid mark as proving beyond reasonable doubt a speed of 95 m.p.h. A reason (if not the only reason) for declining to draw the inference was that "taking into consideration the nature of Victoria Park Road at this spot and the short distance to the major junction, [he] felt 95 m.p.h. would be near suicidal". Obviously one cannot be certain of the exact figure, but in my judgment the evidence of the skid mark, combined with that of the damage to the car and that of the "flats" on the tyres, leaves no possible room for doubt that the Appellant was driving not merely very fast but at an outrageous speed. Accepting that the death of Wong Woon-muk was an incident which the magistrate could properly ignore in assessing sentence and that the fine imposed was therefore appropriate, I agree that this was clearly a case where an order of disqualification was called for. As this is a review at the instance of the Attorney General I am content that the period of disqualification should be twelve months. 29th May 1978. Representation: |