Read the full judgment text of CAAR 000012/2001 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 8 November 2001 before Stuart-Moore Ag CJHC, Stock JA, Lugar-Mawson J.
Criminal law – dangerous driving – resisting police – sentencing – review under s.81A Criminal Procedure Ordinance – self-induced drug intoxication as (non-)mitigating factor – starting point – discount for good character and youth – consecutive sentences – driving disqualification – Court of Appeal – sentence manifestly inadequate – starting point ought to have been 3 years' imprisonment (statutory maximum) for dangerous driving falling within worst band of cases; self-induced drug influence is not a mitigating factor but an aggravating one, following R v Boswell [1984] 1 WLR 1047 and R v Gilmartin [2001] 2 Cr App R (2) 212; youth (22) and lack of previous convictions provided no further mitigation in a case of this gravity; one week's imprisonment for violently resisting nine police officers and injuring five of them manifestly inadequate – correct starting point 18 months, with credit for guilty plea 12 months consecutive; driving disqualification of two years wholly inadequate, substituted with five years; dangerous driving maximum of three years noted as a possible constraint contrary to public interest in worst cases – respondent, drug-impaired, embarked on extended crazed driving through busy Kowloon roads, colliding with numerous vehicles, injuring police and civilians, and violently resisted arrest – respondent sentenced to total 3 years' imprisonment (2 years for dangerous driving, 12 months consecutive for resisting arrest) with 5 years' driving disqualification.
Legal issues: Whether starting point for dangerous driving was manifestly inadequate · Whether voluntary drug intoxication is a mitigating factor · Whether age, lack of previous convictions, and character warranted further discount · Whether sentence for resisting arrest was manifestly inadequate · Whether period of disqualification from driving was adequate
Outcome: Application for Review allowed. Sentences substituted.
Cited by 23 cases