HKSAR v. Wong Chi Wai

DCCC161/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 161 OF 2012

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to one offence of dangerous driving and to one offence of driving under the influence of drugs, contrary to section 37 and 39(1) respectively of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374. You admitted the brief facts and I convicted you.

2.The facts were that at about 0100 hours on 9 December last, you drove a taxi.  PW1 was also driving a taxi with three passengers, with of whom was Ng Shing Chak, PW5.  PW1 drove on the first lane of Waterloo Road and stopped at the junction of Prince Edward Road as the lights were red.  After about a minute, you collided with the rear of PW4’s taxi.  PW1 got out of the taxi and approached you.  You made no response, you looked dull and you were murmuring to yourself.  You then again rammed the rear of PW1’s taxi and turned right into Prince Edward Road. 

3.At this time, PW2 and PW3 were travelling along the fourth and fifth lane respectively towards Prince Edward Road.  PW4 was travelling behind PW3.  All three saw you travelling against the traffic flow towards them at 20 to 30 kilometres per hour, therefore PW2 swerved to his right, you drove between PW2’s and PW3’s taxis causing damage to both.  As you travelled past PW4’s car, PW4 saw you laughing at him. 

4.PC5057, PW6, arrived at the scene at about 0104 hours and saw you parked on Prince Edward Road West.  You were holding the steering wheel.  PW6 told you to turn off the ignition but you did not respond.  You were sweating, pale and dull.  You were unable to provide a breath test so you were taken to hospital where at 1035 hours a blood sample was taken with your consent.  Subsequent analysis revealed the presence of methamphetamine at a level of 1.6 ug per millimetre.  You were confused and agitated.  A urine sample taken tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, morphine and ketamine.

5.On 12 December 2011, you were interviewed under caution.  You admitted having taken drugs for flu one hour prior the accident and 1 gramme of Ice.  This was prior to starting your shift.  The latter had been bought in a park in Yau Ma Tei for $900.

6.You admitted seven previous convictions on six occasions, five of which were drug-related.  To be entirely fair to you, the last was 1999 and resulted in a Probation order.  In view of the nature of the offence, I adjourned the case for the preparation of a DATC report whilst making it clear I reserved to myself the right to sentence in any way I regarded proper no matter what the recommendation should be.  That report is now before me and tells me that you are deemed to be drug-dependant and are recommended for DATC.  Mr Yau tells me that you agree with and accept the contents of that report.

7.Mr Yau then entered mitigation on your behalf. He told me that you are 47 years of age, educated to Form 3 and you reside with your mother.  You are now in receipt of Social Welfare having been unemployed for about a year.  Prior to that you had been a taxi driver for about 15 years.  He also told me that unfortunately you have a sister who suffers from mental illness and is in hospital.  In 2010, you underwent an operation to your leg.  Mr Yau also produced a letter written by your mother and a report from the hospital in respect of the operation.  I have read both and I have taken them both into account when deciding the sentence. 

8.In respect of the offence, he said that you took dangerous drugs and flu medication two hours prior to the incident.  However, you were called up and offered the chance of work. Being unemployed you accepted, not realising the effects of the dangerous drugs.  In the incident itself no one was injured and obviously of course no one was killed, the damage was not particularly severe and you have compensated the other drivers.  Mr Yau produced an agreement signed by the other drivers to this effect.  On your behalf, Mr Yau urged me to consider DATC.  He said that you were extremely remorseful.  I turn now to the sentence.

9.Both separately and together these are serious offences.  Knowing that you had taken dangerous drugs, you accepted a job to drive a public service vehicle, namely a taxi.  This was a conscious decision on your part to put the lives of the public at risk.  Your standard of driving was appalling.  It is clear now that this was because it was drugs-induced. It is also clear from the facts that it is only by sheer good luck that no one was badly injured or killed.  It is also fortunate that the level of damage was not as high as it might have been.  When you took control of that vehicle, you presented a severe hazard on the road to other road users, to passengers and yourself. 

10.Whilst I am obliged to the prosecution providing me with two sentencing authorities, the facts of those cases are very different except that they do underscore the serious nature of bad driving and driving under the influence of drugs.  I do accept in mitigation that you have compensated the other parties and that it is a long time since your last conviction.  In my opinion it is no mitigation at all that when you took the dangerous drugs you were not expecting to drive because when the offer came you could and should have refused to accept the driving post.  My approach overall is to decide the level of criminality to arrive at an overall sentence while setting what I regard as the proper sentence for each of the two offences.  I bear also in mind that the urine test shown that you had taken a cocktail of drugs, not just one drug.  This is an aggravating factor. 

11.The following sentences will be imposed.  I reject the notion of DATC, I do not believe that that is serious enough in the circumstances.  On the 1st charge I take a starting point, that is the dangerous driving, 18 months reduced to 12 months for your plea of guilty.  That is 12 months’ imprisonment.

12.Additionally, you are disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence in respect of all classes of vehicle for a period of 3 years and prior to driving you must retake your driving test.  In view of that order of retaking the driving test, I do not deem a driving improvement course to be necessary.

13.On the 2nd charge, that is the driving under the influence of drugs, this is the charge which caused the 1st charge to be committed.  I take on that charge a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment. That will be reduced to 18 months for your plea of guilty.  The two sentences will be served concurrently to give what I regard as the proper sentence in the circumstances of 18 months’ imprisonment and you will be disqualified for 3 years on that offence also and that also will run concurrently.

14.Therefore, in summary, you will go to prison for a total of 18 months.  You are disqualified from driving for 3 years and until you take a driving test.  The disqualification runs from today.