Read the full judgment text of CAAR3/2010 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 13 October 2010 before Yeung JA, Beeson J, McMahon J.
Criminal law – dangerous driving causing death – s. 36(1) Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap 374) – review of sentence under s. 81A Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221) – young offender aged 19, unlicensed vehicle with no third-party insurance, carrying six passengers including minors aged 14 – driving at 87-107 km/h in 50 km/h zone on narrow back street at night – two teenage rear-seat passengers killed, one rendered paraplegic, one seriously injured – respondent herself suffered permanent injuries including brain damage – whether sentencing starting point of 15 months was unduly lenient – whether evidence from respondent's separate trial for taking conveyance without authority admissible on review – whether previous good character and remorse retain weight where guilty plea discount given. Held: evidence from separate trial inadmissible for review under s. 83V(5) Criminal Procedure Ordinance as it could only be used to aggravate. Starting point of 15 months too low; appropriate starting point 2 years 6 months given aggravating factors: deaths of two teenagers, paraplegia of a third, conscious recklessness on narrow night-time road, no insurance, overloading with insufficient seat belts, and increased maximum penalty signalling need for greater deterrence. Good character and remorse subsumed into full guilty plea discount per Lam Siu Tong and Yam Chun Keung; respondent's own permanent injuries treated as separate mitigating factor. Application granted; sentence increased from 10 months to 16 months' imprisonment; 2½-year disqualification upheld.
Legal issues: Admissibility of evidence from separate trial in sentence review · Whether the sentencing starting point adequately reflected the gravity of the offence · Weight of good character and remorse where full guilty plea discount is given
Outcome: Application for review of sentence granted; sentence of imprisonment increased from 10 months to 16 months; disqualification order of 2½ years upheld.
Cited by 20 cases